Pro-lifers are often criticized for their position that human life begins at conception. Many incorrectly think that this belief is based on some blind religious dogma, a scripture passage somewhere, or some stubborn need to tell women what to do with their bodies. All the while, this same opposition likes to pretend that they are the scientific, logical ones – obviously not blinded by religion or some judgmental God.
Of course, this is exactly backwards from reality. The entire basis for life beginning at conception stems from well documented, universally recognized scientific fact. The only ones who deny this are those blinded by their own religious dogma of so-called “choice” who have a stubborn need to deny scientific fact in order to stay faithful to their own ideology.
If science had proven that human life actually began at implantation or at nine weeks or whenever, then that’s precisely when we (Catholics and any other reasonable belief system) would believe that human life began. Simple. And, logically, it would be from that moment when this human being should be treated with the rights and dignities that come with being a human being.
But that’s not what science has told us. Science has quite clearly and decidedly proven that human life begins at conception (i.e. fertilization. AKA the moment sperm and ovum meet and form an entirely new, self-directing living organism of the human species with its own individual DNA distinct from both mother and father.).
At this point in the debate, some try and introduce a separate distinction and question of “personhood.” Aside from this usually being a convoluted way to try and create classes of human beings and that it doesn’t hold up to any consistently logical scrutiny, it’s also not at all a scientific argument. It’s a philosophical one. So it is totally irrelevant to the scientific question of when human life begins.
Recently, Dr. Robert George wrote an article outlining this whole topic in more detail. It’s worth a read. And if you want to really learn your stuff, pick up his excellent book entitled Embryo (I’m in the middle of reading it right now). In his words:
“That is, in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism. This organism is a whole, though in the beginning developmentally immature, member of the human species. Readers need not take our word for this: They can consult any of the standard human-embryology texts, such as Moore and Persaud’s The Developing Human, Larsen’s Human Embryology, Carlson’s Human Embryology & Developmental Biology, and O’Rahilly and Mueller’s Human Embryology & Teratology.” – Dr. Robert George
“Human embryos, whether they are formed by fertilization (natural or in vitro) or by successful somatic-cell nuclear transfer (SCNT — i.e., cloning), do have the internal resources and active disposition to develop themselves to the mature stage of a human organism, requiring only a suitable environment and nutrition. In fact, scientists distinguish embryos from other cells or clusters of cells precisely by their self-directed, integral functioning — their organismal behavior. Thus, human embryos are what the embryology textbooks say they are, namely, human organisms — living individuals of the human species — at the earliest developmental stage.” – Dr. Robert George
Did we catch that? Human embryos only need a suitable environment and nutrition to become more mature human beings. Hey, that’s kind of like humans at any stage – at least for our biological maturity. Unfortunately, the culture outside of the womb is seemingly a less and less “suitable environment” for bringing about other kinds of maturity. But that’s another issue entirely.
But despite our maturity, biological or otherwise, we are “whole” members of the human species – human beings. And with that comes an inherent dignity and right to life.
One of the great powers of science is that it is able to help clarify moral issues like this for us. It’s a powerful tool. Science is clear on this one. If you are a fan of science, then consider also being a fan of human life – at all of its stages.
{ 128 comments… read them below or add one }
Matt,
Your writing and reasoning skills continually blow me away.
An excellent piece!
Thank you.
It seems obvious that at conception the embrio has potential of becoming a full-blown human being. But so does a stem cell. Does that make stem cells human persons? And if so, as human persons, is it murder to “kill” a stem cell?
Tim – you aren’t being precise enough so your analogy doesn’t make sense.
An embryo is a complete human life. It is an individual, unique, self-directing organism. All it needs is food and suitable shelter (just like the rest of us) and it will grow into an adult human being.
I want to be clear though. Technically, some consider a zygote (fertilized human egg) to be a “stem cell” as it’s totipotent (and eventually grows into an adult human).
But the stem cells I assume you are referring to are the embryonic/adult ones used for testing, etc…which are either pluripotent or multipotent – meaning that they can not ever form into their own organism. They are biologically very different and are a kind of cell that comes from the human organism itself. So no, they are not human persons by themselves. And no, it is not murder to “kill” such a stem cell.
A Cell isnt human. A human Is a fully developed baby that can live outside of the womb. That happens at about 24ish weeks (all babies are different.)
An embryo isn’t human, zygote isn’t human, an egg isn’t human, a cell isn’t human. I cant take any of those things outside of the mother and have it survive. Sorry it is not a “self-directing organism.” Its head doesn’t develop till week 7 so how can its brain function to support self-directing?
Jason – you should look into the science a bit more. The terms you are make it hard to have a conversation about them when the definitions you are using seem fairly arbitrary and not in agreement with established science and definition. Cells are absolutely of a “kind” ie human or dog or whatever they are made of. They are made of DNA for a specific type of organism. So humans are made of human cells and human DNA. So your sentence there doesn’t make sense.
Being able to “live outside of a womb” is not any part of what makes a particular organism human or not. It has nothing to do with it.
And the brain is not the only “self-directing” thing in a human. Of course, even a single cell directs itself. And early on, the fertilized human egg has all of the information, instructions and self-direction to grow into an adult human. He/she just needs food (nutrition) and proper shelter (womb) – BOTH things that EVERY human needs, regardless of their stage in life.
@Matthew, you may talk about a human zygote as encompassing the potential (DNA, etc) for human life but the issue with abortion concerns another matter, that of the “soul” in the context of Catholicism. While I’m sure you believe in a soul, many do not take that leap of faith. So the choice to terminate a developing zygote is really arbitrary. The “definition” of when human life begins is very much still debatable. But even if you define the start of human life at conception, its a choice left to bring that human to full term; no doubt a difficult choice but one that can be made without repercussion unless you believe that a soul truly embodies that life. Ending human life is not a reproachable act, we do it all the time in war, in self-defense, in mercy – it only becomes a dilemma when you buy in to a religious view that imposes morality around terminating human life.
cesar,
The discussion about abortion need not depend on the existence of the soul at all, or on religious belief. Many atheists are pro-life, and they certainly don’t believe in souls or in religion. The ethical treatment of human beings, including those in the womb, is about respect for life, and in particular about the obligation to protect innocent life.
Scientists agree that a human embryo, even when a zygote, is human. It isn’t a dog or a cow or a fish or an insect, planaria, or sponge. It can only be human, and since it is living, it is a human life.
Your argument is full of apparently unexamined presuppositions — about what life is, about what other people believe, about what is acceptable conduct. I can only hope that you come to understand that.
Its not a person. Every thing that makes you, you, is your brain. How can you even argue that a person is a person before the brain develops? Also people are capable of living outside of the mothers womb. Zygotes and embryos aren’t.
Brain dead people are dead, just because a machine can keep your organs working doesn’t mean you are a person any more.
Words have meaning and you sir are warping the words to suit your needs.
self-directing:
Directing or guiding oneself, especially as an independent agent.
That’s what the word means, an embryo, zygote, or egg does not fit those things, it doesn’t have a brain capable of thought, and its defiantly NOT independent
independent – free from external control and constraint
a skin cell isn’t a human, a brain cell isn’t a human
An embryo and zygote are both parasites of the mother.
You say it “just needs food” and “proper shelter” and It also need a lot more from the mother, it is incapable of surviving even a few minutes outside of the womb.
The umbilical cord transfers blood that that it needs if you cut the parasitic tie to the mother the organism dies.
Jason, you sound a lot like the folks who argue that it is ok to kill children up to the age of 30 days, or even three years, because they can’t survive on their own. You’re on a very slippery slope.
Is a constant blood transfusion required for a child of 30 days or 3 years? No
Your arguing nonsense, if you read what I said, when a human becomes viable to live outside of the womb, then its to late for the mother to abort. It happens at about 22-24 weeks.
Some people want life to start at the start of the menstrual cycle, so its a “life” before its even fertilized. So I dismiss those nonsense arguments.
Hey guys, it’s me again. A little background: I’m liberal (you knew that.) Most of my friends are liberal. I lived in Austin for the last 5 years, I work in the film industry. It doesn’t get a whole lot more liberal than that. I’m also outspoken (you knew that too.) Happy to discuss this stuff with anyone who wants to.
All that said, I have never heard anyone in my entire life argue that a fetus is not alive.
I can let a straw man slide every now and again, but here’s my fear: when either side has convinced themselves that the other side is just flat out crazy or flat out evil or flat out stupid, that’s when a lot of bad stuff starts to happen. See: Israel/Palestine, for example. I’m no alarmist, so I don’t think we’re headed there per se, but it’s quite obvious that we’re all gonna have to figure out how to work together on this one.
At least until we colonize the moon. Then you can just cram all the liberals up there. Please send food.
Well allow me to point out your straw man then. We all know the argument is NOT “that a fetus is not alive.” So I’m not sure why you mention that as if it is what we’re talking about here. Lots of things are alive – plants, bacteria, ants, Elvis (on the moon), etc.
The argument is whether or not a fetus is a living HUMAN BEING. Science clearly tells us that it is indeed a WHOLE member of the human species and its own unique human being. So there is no question, for example, that abortion ends a human life by its very definition. This is scientific fact – not a liberal or conservative opinion.
As a human being, doesn’t he/she have the natural rights of every other human being? Reasonably, it would seem so.
And the moon is edible – so you’re all set!
What if a fetos was found on the moon, would the scientists and the world say they had found LIFE….My view is that they would say that, the,y have found life on the moon….therefore if they did say that and agreed that a fetos is life then legally all the abortions that have SADLY happened are murders… I wonder if the women who have a bortions, how they would feel, if this was proven to them. As Danna’s song goes( I think from memory) mummy let me live. My saying is please let them live for God’s sake and our world.
xxxmoira
Also, there were no accusations of “flat out evil” or “crazy” here. Just an appeal to look at the facts and follow them to their logical conclusion in the hopes that we can all “figure out how to work together on this one.”
And Manya – thank you for the kind words! Glad you liked it!
Very well written and powerful.
Huh?
First line: “Pro-lifers are often criticized for their position that human life begins at conception”
I’m saying I’ve never heard anyone ever argue that. I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that you were suggesting that pro-choicers often refute that.
The argument, for all I’ve seen, is one of viability. That is to say, until a fetus can reasonably survive outside the womb (with whatever artificial means available to keep it alive), the state has no right to tell a woman to keep it in her womb.
I know you don’t agree with that, so no reason to debate it here. And I didn’t mean to say you thought I was crazy or evil, either. But if you convince yourself or someone else that there are all these people that think a fetus isn’t human life, of course you and all of them are gonna start thinking these people are liars at best, crazy/evil at worst. If I write an article saying like “Pro-choicers are often criticized for thinking women should have the freedom to make their own decisions,” I have a feeling you’d be a little annoyed at the implication that you and all your (non-pinko) pals think that they shouldn’t.
Pinko, if this is the first time you hear that pro-lifers are criticized for stating that human life begins at conception, then I’d say you have not been around this debate long enough.
Certainly the “viability” argument is also used, though I think it’s a very week one. But if one determines that human life begins at conception then direct termination of that life is murder, plain and simple.
The issue of viability is just another red-herring pro-choicers use to avoid this fact. Do you deny the scientific facts that human life begins at conception?
Well said Truthfinder! I wish I could put my thought that clearly in writing.
It should not be surprising that you began with the premise that human life begins at conception, and then proved it by re-stating it as fact.
I once visited a factory that made glass soda bottles from old glass bottles. They took the old glass bottles, ground them up and then melted them down. The liquid glass was poured into molds and then the bottles were cooled in kilns.
A bottle begins with ground glass, but ground glass is not a bottle. Melted glass is required to make a bottle, but it is not a bottle. Even a near-complete bottle just out of the mold would shatter into a million pieces if not cured in a kiln, and would therefore not be a functional “bottle”. Only the product of the complete process is an actual “bottle”.
Properly nurtured and protected a fertilized egg will eventually become a human. That DOES NOT mean as fact that it is a “human” from the moment of conception.
Brad, so is a bottle a bottle like after a few minutes in the kiln? Or is it when the door opens to the kiln? Or maybe right before they turn the heat down? Or does the bottle have to be completely removed from the kiln before it is actually a bottle? Or perhaps the bottle must be cooled down and actually filled with a cold drink before it’s a bottle?
When exactly does a bottle become a bottle?
Oh, and either way, bottles are not humans. And bottles do not grow all by themselves by simply giving them nutrition and shelter. Or without needing any instructions as to how to become a bottle. Your ground glass or melted glass is not self-directing. You should read the science on human embryology. It’s been studied and thought out a bit more than bottles. So analogies with bottles don’t clarify, they obfuscate. We don’t need to use an analogy when we already know the science of how humans come to be. Additionally, you can ask any credible embryologist as to when a unique, individual and self-directed human life begins…and the answer is fertilization (i.e. conception).
Of course the products of human conception are human. They certainly are not inanimate, and they are certainly not of a different sort of life than human. The sperm and egg were alive and human before conception took place too. The question is not when life begins or when humanity begins. Indeed, it is not even when personhood begins or when the soul enters the body. We are in the process of developing our personhood and our souls at least from the day we are born, and it is not at all clear that we are ever really, fully ensouled, and the very essence of our person changes vastly over time.
The question is what gives life value. Is it its God-givenness? That is, is value at the essence of our humanity? of life itself? Is it the way a life is lived? That is, is the murderer’s life worth less than the victim’s? the visitor of prostitutes worth less than the faithful husband? And if human lives are of equal value, then a whole lot of beliefs come into question. And if not, others.
What gives life its value? We don’t begin to share a common answer to this question. And until we do, there is no chance of answering a political question like abortion, that has nothing at all to do with biology and everything to do with values.
re your assertion about ensoulment, etc., which is totally irrelevant: An excellent thing to read is Archbishop Chaput’s remarks day before yesterday at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, especially his quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer. See it at http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/11/4256
The Bonhoeffer quote: “Dietrich Bonhoeffer—and remember this is the same Lutheran pastor who helped smuggle Jews out of Germany and gave his life trying to overthrow Hitler—wrote that the ‘destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed on this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder.’ “
The political question has absolutely everything to do with both biology and values. You are right that “ensoulment” has nothing to do with it. But under the law all persons have equal rights (generally speaking). So, politically speaking, biology has everything to do with it because that is what determines personhood in our country.
Our “values” just haven’t caught up to the science. And as more and more people are educated about when a new human life begins and that abortion always ends a human life, those values are changing.
I really like one of Chestertons quotes on the “equality” of Man…
“The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man.” – G.K. Chesterton What I Saw In America, 1922
And he’s right. So, to answer your question, any kind of absolute value of human life can only come from a divine origin – it’s “God-givenness” as you put it. This is not only illustrated by Chesterton, but also recognized in the very legal documents that founded our country and our laws.
In what way does biology determine personhood in this country? If we make our determination based on biology, what are we going for? The beginning of life? That is not individual but primordial. The beginning of the person? There you get into the circular argument. Biology and personhood are different languages.
Politically speaking, we are talking about an argument about who has priority, a breathing human individual or a non-breathing human entity, which all agree may be a person soon but not all believe is a person yet. We are talking about an argument about who has the authority to determine whether a woman will give birth – a society whose values she may not share or the woman. The political argument is about power. It is not about values. And it is not about biology.
Biology is biology. Ethics is ethics. And politics is politics. Each is its separate issue.
If we don’t use biology to determine personhood for legal status in this country, what do we use?
And you’re only telling one side of the story. We’re not only talking about who has the authority to determine whether a woman will give birth. We’re also talking about who has the authority to destroy a human life.
In the case of a woman giving birth, this is the natural course of things if no authority is exercised. In other words, it’s left to God’s design and plan. In the case of the intentional destruction of an innocent human life, this is the unnatural course of things.
And political argument is not simply about power…as if to say it’s about “controlling” a woman’s body. Oversimplifications like that miss the depth and profundity of this issue. The political argument is about PROTECTING. Protecting an innocent life. A human life that has wronged nobody and is owed the dignity of not being killed and tossed aside as if it were a piece of garbage or bodily waste.
We use bureaucracy, of course. A person is a person once s/he has been (or could be) registered upon birth. Though there are efforts to change that, that is the current legal truth.
To make the statement about who has the authority to determine whether a woman gives birth or not, we are only discussing the reality of the matter. No interpretation is necessary. Either she decides or, through some mechanism or other, society or government decides. But to make the statement about who has the authority to destroy a human life, you have to already have the conclusion to the argument that in our society is far from settled, a conclusion stating that abortion is in fact “taking a human life” – as opposed to destroying living tissue that has the potential of becoming an individual person. I did not leave off half the story, I just did not include the part of it that is not comparable.
As for the natural course of things, all manner of things is natural but regularly avoided because life is more pleasant without it. The very phraseology “the intentional destruction of an innocent human life” assumes the position it attempts to support.
All that said, I am not in the least in favor of abortion. To the extent possible, we should build systems of health and financial support, education, birth control and family planning that do not put so many women in the position of having to make the choice in the first place. (The choice must be made whether legal or not, as the presence of illegal abortions in the days before Roe v. Wade illustrates.) And we should build aspects of society that make it easier for women to avoid what amounts to penalty for choosing other options other than abortion.
And we must recognize that not all pregnancy scenarios are equal. A 13-y/o who has been raped and is pregnant or a 40-y/o whose unborn child has complications that endanger the mother’s life is not at all the same moral or ethical issue as a 22-y/o who doesn’t want stretch marks. They are distinct kinds of situations that cannot be lumped together.
At the very least until that far distant day when we have the kind of society where women are fully supported in their lives, pregnancies, and child rearing, it is not a moral society that makes abortion illegal. If you want to eliminate abortion, reshape society so that the alternatives are more attractive to the real people living in the society.
Paul – Yes, a bureaucracy determines personhood based upon whether somebody has been born. And being born, for anyone else who may not be seeing this, is a matter of biological fact. So of course it’s a matter of biology. It’s just a matter of when our legal definition of personhood is going to catch up to the scientific truth on the matter. Look, trying to separate personhood from biology from bureaucracy from whatever other obfuscation you’re going to introduce next are all needless and illogical abstractions.
And what it comes down to is that you’re incorrect about whether or not it’s “settled” that a human life is ended in an abortion. That’s my point. It IS settled. Science has more than settled that a new, unique, individual, self directing human life is created at fertilization. That’s settled. It’s just that people don’t want to accept this truth because of its hard consequences to the lifestyles so many have chosen. And yes, even the hard consequences to some very rare, but real and difficult situations regarding some pregnancies (rape, health of mother, etc.). But that just makes them hard (which life is). It doesn’t make killing innocent innocent human life acceptable or moral.
And better education and resources for pregnant mothers would be great. I’m with you there. I’m not with you on more contraception (as that is one of the contributing factors to the lifestyle that has led to more abortions and to treating abortion as a kind of “birth control” in the first place).
Either way, all of those are just really, really bad excuses to intentionally kill an innocent human life. They are illogical and unethical as well. They just happen to be accepted excuses by many in our culture. And suggesting that it is “not a moral society” that makes abortion illegal when women are not fully supported is completely fallacious nonsense. It implies that it IS a moral society that allows the killing of children in the womb. It is that kind of unsound implication being spread around that has caused so many people to be confused on the ethics of this issue. But as such arguments continue to be exposed as simply irrational, emotional appeals, more and more people are coming around to realizing and respecting the dignity of all life.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Pinko – arguing that the zygote/embryo/fetus is just a piece of bodily tissue and NOT a human life is one of THE MOST common arguments to support abortion. Many say it is a “potential” human life but not a human life, and therefore there are no moral issues with killing it.
Recognizing that an actual human being exists from the moment of conception requires an abortion supporter to then justify the direct, intentional killing of an innocent, individual human being – which is by definition murder.
So most of them (that I’ve come across – which is quite a few, believe it or not) simply argue that it is NOT a human being. This post reminds them that such an argument is completely and utterly rejected by science.
Here’s an all encompassing article that your bloggers might like to read Matt. It appeared in “Developmental Biology” which is the premier peer reviewed scientific journal that developmental biologists submit and have their research published. It indicates that there is still no definitive scientific answer to this question. Science can only provide so much information and then, as usual, arriving at an answer involves more than just science which is why religion and culture enter into the equation and also why there is no one good easy answer. It states that current scientific views of when human life begins range from fertilization to gastrulation to birth and even after. There is an examination of each of the major perspectives with arguments for and against each of the positions. Contemporary scientific literature proposes a variety of answers to the question of when human life begins. You might have to type this in your browser… It’s long but worth the read.
http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162
I’ve honestly never heard anyone argue that, I still think it’s a bit of a straw man. I just googled for the last 15 minutes, trying to find ANYone who would argue that a fetus isn’t human life. I found a whole lot of pro-lifers arguing that pro-choicers are wrong about this, but no actual pro-choicers arguing that. Finally, on googling “why i think fetus is not human” I found a couple of people, most of them with anime characters as avatars, arguing that. So perhaps indeed I had not been around this debate long enough. But then, as a test, I also googled “why i think black people are not human” and found some people arguing that, as well.
When you say, however, abortion is murder, then by all means I will agree that pro-choicers disagree with you there. For lots of reasons. I don’t need to go into them here. But if you really want to call it murder, why wouldn’t you call the mothers murderers?
(just to make sure i’m crystal clear: I’m not encouraging you to call mothers who seek an abortion murderers, I’m just trying to point out what I personally see as a giant hole in your logic.)
I really wish I’d found this thread earlier. Pinko, I did a search for the terms “poll when does life begin” and the first result is an international survey finding that most human beings do not believe that human life begins at conception: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15062-when-does-human-life-begin.html
Pinko you say pro choicers believe that human life begins at conception and that pro choicers believe aborting this human life is not murder explain how anyone could really believe this
Pinko – you probably weren’t googling the right things because the terms are often phrased differently depending on what side you’re on.
Virtually no legitimate pro-choice organization will make an OUTRIGHT claim that an embryo/fetus is not a human life – because they know it will cause them to lose credibility (see my post above).
However, they prey upon a very common ignorance in the public that do believe it is not a human life yet. I would challenge you to also google and find abortion providers that clearly inform patients that a fetus IS a human being (i.e. not in some fine print somewhere). I bet that will be just as tough.
For instance, Planned Parenthood often defines a fetus as an “organism that develops from the embryo at the end of about seven weeks of pregnancy.”
They aren’t lying. THey are just not telling the whole truth. They do this for two main reasons. 1) They make every effort to depersonalize the person in the womb. 2) they are preying on an ignorant patient base that aren’t sure or don’t know that it is an individual human life.
I have also had countless (and by countless I mean too many to recall and count) conversations with people claiming that a fetus is not a human being. So you can call this argument a straw man, but the truth is that it is far from it – at least for all of these people I’ve personally encountered.
Here is a poll that reflects it as well. I know it is unscientific and not precise (it’s the best I could quickly find), but definitely shows that a large percentage of people (similar to what i’ve found in my personal experience) think a human becomes a human at a later stage than it actually does.
Finally, it is also not a straw man at all in terms of our laws in this country. Many laws and state definitions still exclude the “unborn” in their definitions of “individual” due to some apparent uncertainty in the beginning of human life. Such an argument can be found in numerous legal cases, including roe v wade. But we don’t have that uncertainty anymore and need to continue to educate people about that.
Barbara,
Thanks for the article. It was interesting. However, respectfully, that article is “scientific” like Paul Krugman and Ann Coulter are “hard news.”
You are incorrect that the answer of when a human life begins can not be answered by science. It is absolutely answered by science for it is entirely a scientific question. There were times in our history (most of it) that we were unable to answer it because of our limited knowledge and technology (as is reflected in that article you posted). But that is no longer the case.
Aside from that article not understanding what it was talking about when it informed us of what the “Catholic Church taught” – it spent most of its time just telling us what various positions people apparently speculatively held prior to science having the ability to answer the question. That may be interesting for some people, but it is not scientific evidence one way or the other.
Further, the fact that it even talks about “ensoulment” as a factor in scientifically determining when human life begins is telling enough of just how “scientific” this article is.
If you want to read a scientific pov I would encourage you to read the article I linked to above by Dr. Robert George and to read his book. And he does address the topics of twinning and spontaneous abortion.
You are confusing the issues – as does that article. Yes, ensoulment is a religious question that can not, as far as we know, be answered scientifically. But I’m talking about when science says a human life begins. And there is no question science tells us it begins at conception (fertilization). Science defines what a human being (homosapien) is and what constitutes an “individual life.” Read any credible embryology book.
And one last thought, if any publication or journal or scientist ever claims or suggests as credible that a human life begins “after birth” – I would seriously question their credibility.
This is a good discussion. Of course – since I am Catholic – I agree with Matt about the scientific validity of human life beginning at conception. Nearly all reputable scientists agree with that.
I think that the issue itself is changing, and pinko’s ignorance (not meant in a bad way) of the criticism of pro-lifers believing that life begins at conception is indicative of this change. The argument is no longer in the scientific realm because the pro-choice battle is already lost on that field. This battlefront is now in the realm of the philosophical, particularly with regard to viability, the individualism and inherent rights of the fetus, and the so-called reproductive rights of the mother. Philosophers like Peter Singer are at the forefront of this debate, and even suggest that infanticide is morally alright up until the age of two.
All of that being said, I love your post, but I think that the vast majority of people on the other side won’t be swayed by it unless they are honest. The majority of pro-choicers – I feel – are that way because of rhetorical persuasion and bad philosophy rather than by science.
I don’t think the article was disputing when human life begins but more when does a human life become a human being. And Dean is right, the differences are more philosophical and not just about science. Most things human are not just about science, if they were, everything would be less complicated. How could people believe in god without the science? They can believe precisely because there are other considerations than science.
Human beings have made this issue more complicated than it needs to be simply so that they could find a way to do as they please…a way to rationalize doing what’s wrong. And that’s exactly what has taken place.
If a human being begins at conception (and we seem to be in agreement on that point), then human rights also begin at conception. It’s as simple as that. Or, at least, it should be as simple as that.
Matt: Yeah, maybe you’re right. I still contend though that anyone who has any idea what they’re talking about agree that a fetus is human life. If someone doesn’t think that, there are a few more issues we need to deal with with them before we even get to this topic. I guess it’s the same way I shouldn’t have to argue that pro-lifers shouldn’t murder anyone to make their point. Like if I wrote an article about that, I think you’d probably argue that it’s not really a rational line of thought, no?
Rob, it’s like this: if a mother pays someone to kill her 5 year old son, that’s murder, I agree. If that same 5 year old son is on life support and the doctor says you make the call, and the mother decides to pull the plug – that’s not murder. You may disagree entirely with her decision, but it’s something different. That’s something I’ve never been able to rectify with your side, you are all adamant it’s murder, but you’ve decided to blame the ‘industry’ instead of the people who pay for the actual murders.
One last thing: Matt, Paul Krugman, a Nobel prize winning economist, in the same breath as Anne Coulter? Really?
Pinko – I’ve never met ONE person that thought it was ok to murder anyone to make their point. However, as I’ve said a few times, I’ve met countless people who don’t believe embryos/fetuses are human lives. I also don’t think you can find a poll where 42% of people think it’s ok to “murder someone to prove a point.” So, no, i don’t think the issues are comparable. But I understand the point you’re trying to make.
And Paul Krugman is one of many questionable Nobel Prize winners. Either way, I wasn’t comparing the two. Just saying that both of them are not at all hard news reporters.
Manya – you are right on. The semantic confusion is often an attempt to muddy the issue – not clarify it.
Barbara, your statement “when does a human life become a human being” is a good example of this. There is no distinction between a human life and a human being. But your statement infers that there is some kind of separation here. It’s just not true. It’s very simple in terms of our definitions.
Dictionary: Human Being –
1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens.
2. a person, esp. as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species
I think what you mean to suggest is that certain human beings have rights and others don’t? That’s really the question here, right? At least, that’s where a lot of pro-choicers who recognize the science find themselves. Pinko, is this your position?
Well, I can link to a thread on a prominent Catholic blog where several people aren’t flat-out calling for more murders, but certainly aren’t ready to say murdering a doctor who performs abortions is entirely wrong, either. In this thread, they’ll repeatedly compare Tiller to Hitler. In fact, on this same blog I’ve seen people compare Obama to Hitler. I’m pretty sure if you gave me a week to make an internet poll where anyone can respond and there’s no accounting for the answers, the people who respond, or the accounting itself, I can get you a poll that says 42% of people think murder of an abortion doctor is okay.
As for the above question: no, I think that in certain cases, it is a parent’s burden to make decisions for their child. If they decide that their kid is better off coming off of life support, I a) trust that they are in a better place to make that decision than I, b) don’t think you or the government are in a better place to make that decision for them, and c) don’t think calling the parent in that case a murderer would solve one single problem in the world.
P.S. I was just messing with you on Krugman. I mean, not really, but I knew what you were going for. I would have even let Michael Moore slide. But Krugman, come on!
And if you could do that, Pinko, then you would be justified in writing a blog post to those 42% trying to convince them otherwise. And your argument would not be a straw man.
And I wasn’t talking about life support. Catholic moral theology does not expect or require one to keep people on extraordinary means of life support – so I’m not sure why it’s even coming up. Unless by life support you mean feeding somebody or giving them shelter. Then yes, it is immoral not to do that when you can.
I was talking more specifically about a human person in the womb. Do you believe that a human being in the womb has less of a right to live than you or I or anyone else? And why?
(Staying out of the crossfire, I hope.)
It seems to me the actual issue is the question of “At what point does a human being obtain full legal rights and status as a person?” I say, and I believe most pro-life advocates would agree, that conception is the point at which a human being obtains full legal rights and status as a person.
Did you know that there are people in the United States (doctors, lawyers, legislators, and lay people) who advocate not granting a human being full legal rights and status as a person until three to five days after birth? Their justification for this is that there are some birth defects and “quality of life” issues that do not become apparent until a baby is between 3 and 5 days old. Denying these infants rights and status as persons would make it legal to simply kill them as “defective.”
If we don’t establish the point at which a human being has legal rights and status as a person as being at the moment of conception, it’s just a slippery slope from there.
There are truly some nasty, wicked, and evil things afoot in our legislatures. We need to be aware of what is going on and fight them. I heard a member of the President’s cabinet this weekend say that if we don’t pass the Obama healthcare reforms RIGHT NOW, it will be decades before we get healthcare reform in this country. I say, if we let them rush us into agreeing with the really egregious provisions of the current bill, it will take us decades to win back what we should never have lost in the first place: the unrestricted right to life. Here’s an analysis of what’s in the Obama administration’s current healthcare package (it will raise the hairs on the back of your neck): http://immaculataconceptio.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/from-an-email-from-a-fellow-father-of-mercy-citing-line-by-line-the-obama-hellth-care-plan-what-a-fright/
Pinko, take a close look at what you are supporting. Turn the rock over. You won’t like what you see.
Sorry, left out an important word: “full” The fourth paragraph should read:
“If we don’t establish the point at which a human being has full legal rights and status as a person as being at the moment of conception, it’s just a slippery slope from there.”
I think everyone can agree that a fertilized ovum is not only life, but human life. It is also the beginning of a unique, human individual, the DNA is different than each parents’. Science has settled that issue and to argue otherwise flies in the face of facts.
Bill states the Church’s current position: “..I believe most pro-life advocates would agree, that conception is the point at which a human being obtains full legal rights and status as a person.” This, of course, is not a scientific statement of fact, it is a religious or philosophical claim. Science is descriptive, not prescriptive, it can never tell us what “ought” to be done in terms of morality or rights.
No society on earth has ever granted “full legal rights” to a newborn. In our country, you can not vote, drive, own property, sign legal contracts nor do a myriad of others things that become our “rights” until we gain experience and age. Without question, all of these subsidiary rights depend on one fundamental–the right to live, to exist.
Does a just-fertilized ovum possess that primary right? Not in our country nor any other Western nation. Realistically, such a law will never be adopted because it would entail banning even ordinary birth control pills, which act in some instances as abortifacients–not preventing conception, but implantation in the uterus.
While most Americans support bans on late-term abortions, and even restrictions on abortions after the first trimester (as there are in some states), there will never be a consensus to outlaw contraception nor early-term abortions, that is a simple political reality.
Statistically, Catholics use standard forms of birth control and avail themselves of legal abortions at the same rate as the general population. Despite their most fervent efforts, pro-life advocates will never convince most people that preventing the implantation of a blastocyst or an early-term abortion is “murder.” While it is certainly human life, it is not protected as “a human person with full legal rights and status.”
When does a fetus attain a status that merits legal protections? I don’t know, and neither does anyone else. Even influential figures within the Church (Such as its two greatest theologians, Augustine and Aquinas) have held views which markedly differ from present teaching, nor has current doctrine ever been proclaimed as “infallible” by any pope. The debate continues.
Thanks for the well articulated thoughts, JT! A few thoughts from what you said…
That is incorrect. All natural rights, including the right to life, are inherent to every human. So yes, every human, from the point of conception, “possesses” every natural right that you or I have. It is just that our current laws violate those rights. Hence, the need to fight for justice (regardless of whether you think “most people will ever agree” – which I believe they will).
It merits them at the moment it became a distinct, new human…which was at the moment of conception.
Just because something has not been proclaimed extraordinarily by a pope as infallible does not mean it is not an infallible teaching of the Church. In fact, most infallible teachings of the Church are not proclaimed as such. It’s misleading to suggest that just because a pope hasn’t proclaimed it explcitly that it is still questionable or up for debate. That’s entirely untrue.
The Church has always held that every human has an inherent right to life. This is a part of the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church – which is also infallible. That teaching has always been very clear.
Any ambiguity or uncertainty on the part of Augustine or Aquinas was not about whether a human life has this right. They just didn’t have the technology yet to be certain about WHEN that human life came into being. Now we have that certainty. So the debate on that point is over…for Catholics anyway.
And even if some theologian in the past had disagreed, it ultimately doesn’t matter because the magisterial teaching authority of the Church is what Christ gave us and what constitutes the official teaching of the Church.
I’d be curious though, do you have any quotes from Augustine or Aquinas that would lead anyone to believe that they thought a human life at any stage would not be entitled to the natural rights of every other human being? I’d appreciate the reference!
But anyone that suggests (like Pelosi and other politicians have) that because a theologian 1600 years ago was uncertain about scientifically when a human life began that therefore we as Catholics can still believe whatever we want is being outright deceitful.
The Church is very clear on the natural rights and dignity of EVERY human life. Now science is clear on when that human life begins. There is no ambiguity in Church teaching on this subject anymore. That is what has enabled the popes in recent decades to speak so confidently and specifically on these issues. You can not be a Catholic and also believe (direct) abortion is OK under ANY circumstance. That would be a total contradiction.
JT, if you are going to quote me and then lecture me, how about doing me the courtesy of at least not distorting what I said. I said it was my view. It happens to agree with what the Church teaches, but it is my view. A view held as well by many non-Catholics and even by some atheists.
Furthermore, I don’t believe that I mentioned science. Did I? Show me where. My statement addresses legal and political issues. Currently there are politicians and legislators who wish to deny living human beings full legal status as persons. That’s not right, any more than it was right to deny Africans full legal status as persons in the days of slavery.
Father Z has posted a couple of very powerful articles on his weblog. In my opinion, they are well worth reading.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/08/hurting-the-ear-of-god/
There is just no room for compromise on the right to life.
Very well stated Bill! I am pretty sure Aquinas and Augustine would be faithful to sacred tradition, sacred scripture, and magesterium teaching.
Matthew,
You do a very good job of presenting the Church’s current position on abortion. However, you absolutely confuse two critical issues. Science does demonstrate that human life begins at conception. Then again, science demonstrates that human life begins when a human cell of any type duplicates itself. A human brain cell that replicates itself is human life, but obviously not a human person. A fertilized egg is human life and replicates itself, but science does NOT tell us that it is a human person. The second claim does not follow from the first.
Aquinas followed Aristotle’s definition of Man as “rational animal.” His views on the matter would be confirmed by modern embryology, not contradicted by it. Aquinas viewed the soul as the “form” of the body and integral with it. Aquinas was aware of the developmental nature of the fetus and understood that it passes through stages. While all living things have souls, they are divided into vegetable, animal and rational. A rational soul can only subsist in a body that is appropriate to it, since intellect is immaterial and can ONLY function when a brain and sense organs are present. “There is nothing in the mind which is not first in the senses.”
For Aquinas, human ensoulment can only take place when the body was capable of receiving a rational soul in full union. To claim that a human soul is infused into a zygote would be absurd, because it could not be a true unity and would lead to radical dualism–that the human soul is separate from the body and inhabits it like some kind of ghost or internal puppeteer. That is the critical error Descartes made which has led to a host of absurdities in modern philosophy.
You do a very good job of presenting the Church’s current position on abortion.
Are you suggesting the Church had a previous position in regards to the sanctity of human life?
I don’t know if you have read the Didache of the 2nd century but it is quite clear that human life must be protected at every stage in its course, ‘including the beginning’, despite different opinions regarding when the precise time when the soul is infused. I can assure you that Aquinas and numerous doctors of the Church echo the Church’s teaching that abortion is a grave sin, despite their position when the human soul is infused. This teaching has been consistent throughout Church history and has been forcefully proclaimed by the Magesterium, especially in our day like you mention.
Then again, science demonstrates that human life begins when a human cell of any type duplicates itself.
In regards to a unique distinct human life? Are you really want to justify abortion by claiming it is just a group of human cells and thus cannot have a soul? You or I cannot answer that question, I am not bold enough to say God I know better than you, no soul exists at conception, we simply do not know the answer to that question. I will say it is more than just a group of human cells, we are talking about a distinct beginning of human life an individual person, possibly 2, 3 (twins/triplets)! We do not know, but to suggest that well since it is a group of human cells and these cells haven’t fully developed it is quite ok to stop the growth of this unique human life that is growing. Don’t you think you are playing God at that point? At conception a distinct human person(s) is in its initial stages of development, these group of human cells don’t create just mere skin, but something very unique.
JT –
I would urge you to dig into this a bit further scientifically.
First, here you are saying that science “does NOT” tell us that a fertilized egg is a human “person”…which to many people is a non-scientific distinction in the first place – that of personhood. I would suggest, however, that any human being is also a human “person” and people that suggest otherwise are simply playing semantic games to confuse the matter. But that’s another conversation really irrelevant to this conversation and the fact that science indeed reveals that a new, unique, distinct member of the species Homosapien is created at the moment of fertilization (conception).
Second, because a new, unique and distinct member of the species Homosapien is created at the moment of fertilization, this is ENTIRELY different than a skin or brain cell replicating itself. Claims like this are all addressed in the book I mention in the post by Dr. George. I highly recommend reading it if you like the details of this stuff.
For example, the zygote is entirely new, distinct DNA from that of the mother and father (so very different from a duplicate brain cell). The zygote also functions as a whole organism itself…self-directed and complete with all it needs organizationally to continue developing into an adult human being. These are among a number of unique distinctions that reveal that a fertilized egg is a complete, individual human life as opposed to simply “life” (a living cell or something) that happens to be human (and a small part of the larger organism).
So you are right that simply because a fertilized egg is human and replicates itself does not necessarily make it its own human life. However, many other scientific distinctions indeed make it so.
In regard to this, can you give the source of where Aquinas says this? I’d be interested in reading the context.
To me it seems this distinction could be fine when made in the context of KIND of being (comparing what kind of souls exist in plants vs. animals, vs human beings) not in the context of phases of development or immediate capacity to reason. Not unless you are treating the designation of “rational” soul as a separate designation than that of a “human” soul. You don’t make that clear. But it still doesn’t matter, because you are coming to a scientific conclusion using logic based on an assumed non-scientific premise. It seems you’re suggesting that Aquinas held that rational souls can only be unified with rational bodies, and if a being has no rational soul, then it can’t be a human soul (????), and therefore a zygote with no reasoning capacity has no human soul and is therefore not a human?).
Either way, you’re now getting into the issue of ensoulment which is not the topic of this post, is outside the realm of science, and irrelevant to the scientific facts that clearly show that a new, distinct, individual human life is created at the moment of fertilization (conception)
And it seems a bit strange to suggest that a zygote is a vegetable or animal before it becomes human. First, this would be a bit foreign to modern science…making distinctions like this (and it becomes largely a metaphysical argument anyway once talking about intellect). Second, it would follow that somebody in a coma or who is brain damaged (people without the immediate capacity to reason) would also be without a rational soul. Which I think the Church would disagree with. But even still, even if one wanted to say that a brain damaged person, for example, no longer had a “rational” soul, they would certainly still have a human soul.
Additionally, a zygote – who is scientifically and biologically its own unique, distinct, individual human life – would certainly have a “human” soul (since all living things have souls according to your quotes). It wouldn’t make sense for a human body to have the soul of a vegetable or an animal. Talk about a radical dualism!
But I would appreciate those references of where Aquinas says those things so I can learn a bit more about the context from which he says them. Thanks, JT!
Matthew,
I did stray off-topic, I admit, but there was a reason for it which I will explain, and I sent my post in before I had completed it.
Science can not define the “moment of conception.” Dr. George states: “That is, in human reproduction, when sperm joins ovum, these two individual cells cease to be, and their union generates a new and distinct organism.” Two essences disappear, a new one takes their place. Fertilization takes about twenty four hours and is a process, not a moment. There is not an embryologist in the world who can take two pictures of an ovum being fertilized five minutes apart and tell us why the earlier one is not a person, while the later one is fully a human being.
Leaving that problem aside, let’s move ahead to the zygote. It is a single-celled organism which Dr. George then claims is “…a whole, though in the beginning developmentally immature, member of the human species.” Well, except when it isn’t. A human zygote has the potential to become a number of things, some of which are not “a unique individual of the human species.” The most obvious of these are twins, triplets, quadruplets and in at least one case where all survived, quintuplets. Only the first of these zygotes comes into existence through fertilization, the others result from cell division, there is never a “moment of conception.” So now we have multiple zygotes produced by two separate means of reproduction, and the new zygotes are only unique in their individual existences, not in their DNA. On the horizon, and already performed with other mammals is another form of reproduction, cloning, but we will put that aside.
Zygotes can also become hydatidiform moles. Complete moles have no fetal structure, merely random placental material. They result from the union of a sperm with an egg which contains no nucleus. Partial moles derive from an egg which is fertilized by two sperm cells producing an abnormal fetus with 69 chromosomes and no viability. These moles can also develop into Choriocarcinoma, a form of cancer.
Two zygotes, (or blastomeres after first cleavage) which would normally be the start of fraternal twins can fuse and produce what is popularly known as a “human chimera”–This organism now has DNA from four gametes (two eggs and two sperm) but can develop in a relatively normal fashion, though it can wreak havoc on DNA tests. Additionally, it can produce hermaphroditism when the sexes differ. Thus we have one individual from what were previously two–without the death of either.
Even after implantation, splitting can occur in the embryo, which can result in conjoined twins. Finally, one embryo can engulf another, without cellular fusion, producing a “parasitic twin,” which is almost always severely deformed and without a heart or brain.
By far the most common outcome of fertilization is spontaneous abortion. The latest studies indicate that only about 40% of zygotes are capable of implantation. Another 15% of embryos are lost before 20 weeks after clinical diagnosis of pregnancy, and that figure is considered low because many women lose embryos without being diagnosed or realizing they are pregnant.
Artie, you are correct, the Church has always opposed abortion after conception, but never on the basis that a zygote or an early-term fetus is a human being. For the Church, the central element is the human soul–without it, there is no human person, no “Imago Dei.”
Matthew, one of Aquinas’ passages on this crucial matter is found in the Summa, First Part, question 118, Article 2 which reads in part: “Consequently it must be said that the soul is in the embryo; the nutritive soul from the beginning, then the sensitive, lastly the intellectual soul.” Question 76 “The Union of Body and Soul” also deals with this subject at length. Following Aristotle, Aquinas claimed that human ensoulment could not occur before 40 days (80 for women–Aristotle’s prejudices!).
Why is this so crucial? Because Thomism provides the very theological and philosophical foundations for all papal encyclicals and teachings of the Magisterium (and catechisms) since that time. Of course the Church doesn’t consider Aquinas to have been infallible, yet his synthesis of faith and reason is utilized in every aspect of the Church’s teachings.
Your posting on the Church and evolution provides a perfect example. John Paul II gave his endorsement to the theory, with one provision: While the human form might have come about through evolution, humans, properly speaking, only came into existence with the infusion of the immortal soul. To simplify matters, let’s consider Adam and Eve in a literal rather than allegorical sense. Their parents, genetically members of the species “homo sapiens”–were NOT human persons.
In the very same manner, a human zygote or embryo, if there is no intellective soul present, is not a human person. Yes, the Church vigorously condemns all abortions from the time of conception. Yet it has never proclaimed that a zygote, or an early fetus is a human being with an immortal human soul. To do so would entail repudiating central elements of Aquinas’ philosophy. Jacques Maritain, one of the leading Thomistic theologians of the 20th century bluntly stated: “To admit that the human fetus receives the intellectual soul from the moment of its conception,when matter is in no way ready for it, sounds to me like a philosophical absurdity. It is as absurd as to call a fertilized ovum a baby.”
Of course the Church is not going to make any statement that the human zygote or embryo is not a fully human person, that would certainly be seen as encouraging abortion. However, it carefully circumscribes the issue, as seen in the 1974 Declaration on Procured Abortion: “It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for this first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods. But it was never denied at that time that procured abortion, even during the first days, was objectively grave fault.” They further add: “Moreover, it is not up to biological sciences to make a definitive judgment on questions which are properly philosophical and moral such as the moment when a human person is constituted or the legitimacy of abortion.” Most telling of all is a footnote to the document: “This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant, for others it could not at least precede nidation (implantation). It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons: (i) supposing a later animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed; (2) on the other hand it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul.” John Paul II himself reiterated this view in his expansive “Evengelium Vitae.”
I have gone on far too long, I apologize, and I’ll end with a couple of thoughts. 1) Science does not establish that a full human person with all attendant rights comes into existence at conception, that is outside its provence. 2) The Church does not proclaim that a zygote or embryo or early-term fetus is a human person in the fullest sense, though it leaves the question open and DOES proclaim that is SHOULD be treated as though it has full human status.
For Pro-Life Catholics, it is self-defeating (not to mention inaccurate) to go around telling others that very early-term abortions or the use RU-486, or IUDs or using any contraceptives that prevent implantation is “murder.” Acting on their conscience and the Church’s teachings, Pro-Life advocates can certainly work to convince others that abortion is morally unacceptable from the time of conception. Their efforts, in terms of trying to get legislation enacted, would be better focused on banning late-term abortions as well as restrictions on second trimester abortions, where even the ruling in Roe v. Wade clearly enunciated that the State has a compelling interest in the life of the fetus.
JT – thank you for the very thorough response! I appreciate all of the insights and challenges you’re expressing in regard to ensoulment. But, as you admit, these are philosophical and theological arguments…not scientific ones.
And many of your other points, while they demonstrate some aspects of this question that we do not yet understand, they do not at all contradict or disprove the scientific evidence that a new, individual human life is created at fertilization (conception).
This does not change at all the fact that a new, individual human life is created during this “process.” Just because scientists may not yet agree on the exact moment within the process of fertilization that a new human is created, does not take anything away from the fact that when fertilization is over…we know for sure there is a new human life.
And just because an additional new life may be created later on (twinning) or the original life may end before becoming an adult (miscarriage, absorption, whatever) does not at all change the scientific evidence that it was an individual, distinct human life that did so.
Dr. George addresses each of the issues you mention and many others in depth in his book as well.
But I guess I’m not getting your precise objection to the scientific definition that a new, distinct, individual human life is created at fertilization?
I understand that the philosophical and theological challenges involved with ensoulment leave some ambiguity in some areas in regard to Church teaching on the human “person.” And I never want to overstate the Church’s case because I know that does harm. So I’m sorry if I did that somewhere. But the Church is very clear that, regardless of the exact moment a soul is infused, we are to recognize the personhood and natural rights of that human from the moment of conception.
EV even raises the question of if it is even possible for a human individual (a human life) to not also be a human person?
But again, you are talking mostly about ensoulment which is not the subject of this post. Although I do appreciate all of your follow up (largely asked for by me). It’s something I’m personally interested in learning more about, so thanks! And as I said, I always want to be really careful about overstating any case.
But still, scientifically, the evidence shows that a unique, individual human life is created at fertilization. So it is simply a contradiction of reason to not recognize a distinct, individual human life as existing from the moment of fertilization (conception).
And there are no scientific or civil grounds (at the very least) that these human lives do not have the same right to live as every other human life (adult or otherwise).
Additionally, it is neither necessarily self-defeating nor necessarily inaccurate to label the killing of an embryonic human life as “murder.” Just because the magisterium has not expressly confirmed it as “murder” in those precise words does not mean it isn’t true. And such a position certainly does not contradict any Catholic teaching on the matter.
Either way, the Church has expressly confirmed it as gravely immoral – which is as morally bad as it gets. So we can assign whatever terms we’d like. It is what it is. And it is a human life.
I appreciate your attention to the nuances here, JT. They are very important…and getting into areas of which I have limited knowledge. But I also don’t want those nuances to be misinterpreted or abused by people who want to suggest there is moral wiggle room when it comes to respecting the dignity of human life from conception to natural death.
Great discussion everyone!
Matthew,
You have made me think more deeply about this issue than I have in a long time. I’ll have more to add, but I need to spend some time considering what everyone has said as well as looking for more insight from other sources.
The great thing is that everyone has been able to discuss this critical matter without becoming overly emotional or combative, and I appreciate that. Thanks for your input.
http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d050201.htm
Randy, thanks for sharing. No offense, but those scripture interpretations are pretty (really) cooky – at least the few I had time to read were. By what authority did the website author make such interpretations?
Reader beware.
JT – I really appreciate your contributions. I learned a lot and you definitely challenged me to think about the issue more deeply as well. I agree – it’s really awesome to have a rigorous and respectful discussion on such an important topic. Thank you all!
Matthew,
I admire your creativity. I suspect that you would make an excellent science fiction writer if you are not one already.
Not only does science have no standard for when life begins, there’s no standard definition of what life is:
http://artsandsciences.colorado.edu/magazine/2009/03/can-we-define-life/
Please don’t diminish the beautiful Catholic faith by distorting reality. Science and faith pertain to different but related areas of truth. When you try to distort science to justify your faith, you make faith look weak and desperate. True faith is stronger than that and doesn’t require redefinition of reality to suit its needs.
Kimi, since when does Colorado Arts and Science magazine speak for the entire scientific community on issues such as when life begins? Cleland is a professor of philosophy. What makes her individual opinions more accurate than what we know to be true? That is, that upon fertilization there is a new, unique human DNA where none existed before… She lists mules and amino acids and fire and sterile people as examples that disprove various theories of what life is. She jumps from planets to viruses, and to suggest what? That something…someone…with a unique DNA, which is growing, which becomes not a virus or a mule or a planet, but someone who started just like me… and just like you… is not alive? This makes as much sense as the people who tried to explain why black people were only 3/5 of a human being. It didn’t hold water then (even though plenty of people were duped into believing it) and it doesn’t hold water now. And one day – soon, I pray – people will see efforts to explain why unborn children are not human beings who should be afforded the most precious of human rights…the right to life.
…oops, hit the wrong button! Sorry :) Let me finish -
And one day – soon, I pray – people will see efforts to explain why unborn children are not human beings who should be afforded the most precious of human rights…the right to life…and reject those arguments as just another unsupportable philosophy.
There. Whew!
Kimi, please don’t diminish the beautiful Catholic faith by distorting reality.
Are you life?
I view both so-called Pro-Life and so-called Pro-Choice positions as over-simplified and naive approaches to an extremely complex, extremely fraught set of human problems. More accurately phrased, they are Absolutist Anti-Abortion and Absolutist Anti-Control positions, respectively. There are many Life issues not addressed by Pro-Life groups and frequently addressed in an anti-life manner by Pro-Life individuals. Similarly, Pro-Choice groups are willing to overlook many sound legal and moral principles in favor of a single individual in extremis (or not) making an irreversible decision on a moment’s notice and without the input of any other person – not even the father of the unborn and not even the parents of the girl, in the case of underage pregnancy. The real and sensible world requires a helluva lot more nuance than either side in this fight is willing to consider.
Now, the “When does life begin?” question…
Simply put, that is the wrong question to ask. Or else we have to completely rethink very many life-related issues that are unrelated to the abortion fight.
Life does not begin. Period. It began (past tense) a very long time ago. Young-Earth Creationists would say that human life began some modest number of thousands of years ago while people who believe in evolution, whether God-directed or not, would say that life began aeons ago in the primordial soup of our planet. But either way, it BEGAN. It does not begin. Rather, life is passed from individual to individual according to the biological reality of each species – through asexual reproduction for some species and sexual reproduction for others, including humans.
When sperm and egg come together, each is already fully alive. And that life goes back to the beginning of all life. New individuals emerge from the reproduction process. But new life does not. The individual is, as it were, inhabited by the common life rather than owner of a unique life. A unique instance of the shared life.
Whatever else that means theologically, philosophically, morally, ethically, socially and politically, it means that when life begins in a meaningless question in the abortion argument.
What we need to consider is a set of questions that are moral and ethical and completely unscientific, among them:
- Under what circumstances do we determine that an individual life must be preserved?
- Under what circumstances do we determine that an individual life may be preserved?
- Under what circumstances do we determine that an individual life may be taken?
- Under what circumstances do we determine that an individual life must be taken?
- According to what criteria and on what authority do we determine the relative value of individual lives?
-What obligation does the human community have to individuals once they have been formed?
- Under what circumstances may the human community abandon such responsibility to the individuals?
To keep this temporarily and comparatively simple, let’s restrict the questions to concerns about human life. But to be anywhere near reasonable and consistent in this inquiry, we can’t just consider life before birth. We must consider individual life at all its stages and in all its circumstances. The very conversation requires attention to a huge number of details, a broad range of ethical and moral principles, and is, in the end, not really about the single issue of abortion and its legal status. It is far larger.
And far more important.
Which should in no way be taken to imply that I think abortion is an unimportant issue. Rather, it is a subset of a much larger issue, and the smaller issue cannot be solved without attention to the larger issue.
Yes, a truly lucid piece, beautifully reasoned.
It seems to me there may be three ‘periods’ of an infants gestation (the 3 ‘trimesters’ mean little other than an arithmetic approximation of ‘stages’ for medical purposes).
The three ‘periods’ might be 1. Conception…Life and Ensoulment given. 2. Movement…around the 15th week-plus, it’s felt. 3. Survivability…21-weeks’ gestation lmp, it’s proven.
On the latter, the chances of survival increase from less than 1% at 21 weeks; up to 21 % at 22 weeks (with ventilator); to 26%/37% at 23 weeks (without & with mechanical ventilation) – even though claims are made that an infant’s lungs cannot function until 24 weeks or later. At 25 weeks, 76%! And at 26 weeks, virtually-assured survival.
Destroying infants through abortion up to 20 weeks is killing.
Shredding viable infants in the womb through Dismemberment D&E at 21 weeks and beyond is infanticide.
For further detailed research, cccf.wordpress.com by Juan O’C assembles it.
Can you give me your definition of what a human life is?
I agree with Pinko, and i believe a woman should be able to choose what happens to her body no matter what the case. And I would just like to point out that as humans, we celebrate the day of birth and not the day of conception.
Isabelle: “as humans, we celebrate the day of birth and not the day of conception.”
- speak for yourself, Isabelle. I celebrate my conception every day! And plenty of other humans do too. 25th March…
So if there were a fire at a fertility clinic, and you saw an infant, sure to die, next to a rack of vials containing fertilized eggs, which would you rescue? Why?
Thumpalumpacus – If there was a fire anywhere, and you saw anyone, sure to die, next to anyone else, which would you rescue? Why? There could be ten “people” and you can only choose one. Which one? Why? Does your choice mean the others are not living human individuals? They could all be robots for all you know, or they could all be genuine human-beings, or whatever. Just because you purposefully or circumstantially end up rescuing one and not another doesn’t define their person-hood. The question you raise, therefore, is surely more about the rescuer and not the endangered.
I will admit I did not read all of the arguments as the entire scientific debate is not relevant to the real question.
Is Abortion wrong?
This is NOT a scientific question, thus the assumption that science proves anything here is irrelevant. Murder is a legal, not a scientific concept. I believe that Abortion on demand is wrong, but I am pro-choice. Why, because my definition of right and wrong is not societies definition of right and wrong and I am not God. Thus this is a religious issue because religions have definitions of right and wrong built into them as God gave these definitions. This is also a political issue because to answer the question we have to make a political decision. We have to decide are we a religious or secular state? If religious then abortion is wrong, if secular then society defines what is right and wrong. So long as society defines abortion as acceptable then abortions will take place. If you want to change this use the appropriate argument, abortion is wrong because the majority of Canadians are people of faith and they believe that abortion is wrong. All this nonsense about science proves this or that is irrelevant. Right and wrong are defined by us, we need to make the choice, science won’t make it for us. If we choose to accept the idea of a God that says abortion is wrong then it is wrong, but if don’t then we have to choose to define abortion right or wrong by the harm it does. There are logical arguments against abortion from the harm it does to family structure to mothers to the future etc.. but these are social not scientific arguments. So the right or wrongness of abortion is either a religious, social or even an economics question not a scientific one. Let us leave science out of the debate.
Yes. Science shows that there is life when a sperm meets an egg. Did you also know that science clearly and logically shows that the earth is older than 6000 years and that species evolved over billions of years to what they are today? Science is awesome.
The Church doesn’t deny that.
Hi Matthew. I’m new.
Someone made to me recentlya really superb pro-choice arguement. The people who made this arguement were not evil, illogical, or stupid. They came off as wholly justifiable, and it took me quite a bit of soul-searching, prayer, and thought to come up with a good counterarguement.
Have you ever heard of the book My Sister’s Keeper? I have never read it but the pro-choicers described it to me. It is about a girl who’s body is, as they described it to me, “perfectly suited to support the body of her sister”. As in, she had to live with her sister or she’d die. The girl sued that she was being forced to live with her sister and won-rightly so. That is a question of personal morals and sacrifice that you shouldn’t be forced to make. You should have the right to refuse being someone’s slave, more or less, to keep them alive.
So the obvious parallel is that a mother should not be FORCED, under law, to have to carry the child; yes, the child would die, but on the other hand, this arguement says, the mother should not be forced to keep the child alive if she doesn’t want to, right?
After much inner turmoil and questioning of whether or not the pro-lifers were correct, I came up with the appropriate answer:
The situation is similar to the one presented. But there are several key differences. First of all, the Mother chose to have sex. She has to accept the consequences. It would be horribly irresponsible to kill a child for your actions, correct?
But this does not take into account (very rare, BTW) cases of rape. Which is still a fair point. So, I’ll make my own analogy: abortion to infanticide.
A child must live with the mother to stay alive. This is both legally AND morally true. The Mother is forced to sacrifice money, food, and shelter to the child so that said child could stay alive. This is considered just by any reasonable society.
“Ah”, the pro-choicers argue, “But what about adoption!”
Fair enough. Pregnant mothers do not have that option. My counter: What if Mothers with born children did not have that option? As in, what if there was no adoption? You would still consider it murder if the child is abandoned, right? I certainly hope so.
So, if we agree that a born child who is not provided basic requirements of life by a legal guardian is in fact murder (and both moral and legal laws agree to this) how can we, in fact, agree that an unborn, yet still fully human, child that is denied the basic requirements of life by its mother is not murder? Remember, we’re working under the assumption that the child is fully human from conception. If we do that, abortion fails the test of human reason.
BTW, about the debate about when a zygote/fetus is human…there is a debate. This is undeniable. I have seen and read reliable links about when the zygote/fetus is considered human. HOWEVER, by the very fact that the zygote MIGHT be human, then causing the zygote’s death is at minimum manslaughter…which is also illegal. Now matter how you look at it, abortion is a grave evil and must be stopped.
Thank you for reading my long post. I just found your blog maybe a half hour ago and am incredibly impressed-you’re smart. I hope you respond to my comment-I’m interested to see your thoughts.
I actually came here to ask a completely different question, but it has nothing to do with this thread.
God bless you!
Good thoughts – thank you for sharing! And welcome to the blog!
First, there is not really a debate about if a zygote/embryo is “human.” Every credible embryologist’s position on this recognizes that a zygote is “human.” If you have sources that suggest otherwise with supported evidence, I would certainly be interested in reading. But if it’s not human, I’m not sure what else it would be!
As far as the example you give (my sister’s keeper)…it’s an interesting one. And I think you are on the right track with your answer. My thoughts…
First, it’s a good thing that this “pro-choice” argument at least seems to recognize that the unborn baby is another person (one that they can be a slave to). They are just trying to find ways to justify killing this other person. That’s a step in the right direction anyway.
Second, when somebody likens the relationship of mother->child to one of slave->master it is a huge red flag that they are missing the boat somewhere. There is just no way this should compute. But I suppose it’s a legit hypothetical (a very desperate one though).
Third, the fact that a baby can only depend directly on the mother for the first 9 months of life is just part of life. The baby is not forcing the mother like a master forces a slave to take care of him. When they are saying the mother shouldn’t be “forced” to take care of this baby…who is doing the forcing? Nature – not the baby or the government. The rest of us are just saying there should be consequences that help protect the baby and give that human life in the womb the respect and dignity it deserves. As you noted, we do the same for post-birth babies.
I can no more complain that I shouldn’t be “forced” to feel pain when I step on glass. Or “forced” to feel sad when somebody hurts my feelings. Or “forced” to breathe air. Or “forced” to have two eyes, a nose, and a mouth. This is just how life works. When new human life is conceived, it just so happens that it occurs inside a mothers womb and needs to live there for 9 months.
Fourth, there is a moral difference between opting out of something and then actively killing them. Abortion is the latter. It is not just “choosing” not to participate. It is intentionally going into a mother’s womb and directly ending the life inside of her. Often stabbing, tearing the baby limb from limb, scraping to death, or burning the baby to death.
Fifth, i think your argument is pretty right on. We have a moral obligation to take care of those that depend on us. We do not have a moral right to directly abandon a baby (born or unborn) with full knowledge that such an action is killing the baby.
If somebody wants to say that means they are “forced” to take care of the baby at that moment, that’s fine. That’s life. Arguments like that try to base their reasoning on false objective truths – false premises. But our society “forces” us not to do things all the time. We have laws we can’t break. Taxes we must pay. People we can’t murder. Nature “forces” us to do things too. Like feel pain. Feel emotion. To keep our brain inside our skull. To not know precisely when we’re going to die. That’s just life.
And ultimately, nobody is really forced to do any of these things. We are free to use our free will to do whatever we like. But there are consequences to those free choices. There can be legal consequences. There are moral consequences. There are eternal consequences.
The real argument here is not that a mother is being “forced” to carry a baby. She isn’t. She can choose to do what she likes. But the consequences are the issue. Nobody can avoid the moral consequences. Those are not determined by us. But the rest of us do have to decide the legal consequences (and also whether or not we want to encourage that behavior, pay for it, promote it etc. like the government and administration currently does). It seems to me that if any of us need such protection that these innocent, defenseless humans deserve to be protected and loved…indeed we have a moral obligation to do so.
Nicely put.
Okay, I just wrote a nice post about the whole “personhood” debate, with links from both (meaning, those who don’t think a zygote’s a person) sides of the debate, as well as the pro-life side, then concluded taht by the mere possibility that the zygote MIGHT be a person, its manslaughter…then I hit submit and it disappeared for some reason, so now I’m posting this. At any rate, rest assured that I did find evidence that a zygote MIGHT, keyword MIGHT, not be a person, which makes no difference because it becomes manslaughter…slightly less bad but still something that should be a sufficient deterrent against abortion.
At any rate, God bless you.
Matt- i think you are too quick to accept the explaination of conception as the beginnings of “life” as that of “human life” or far that matter as having “human value”. First, your argument that science has provided this answer is false, for science cannot provide this. Science can only make observations and postulate the laws or theories that support the data; no where is it within the realm of science to qualify an observation such as defining the beginnings of life. Secondly, one must consider scemantics when taking the term “life” into consideration in this subject of embryonic development. A zygote or embryo as a potential or active blueprint for human development is just that, you or science may ascribe the tag “life” or “human life” to that biological entity, but it does not define the enity as having the quality of life. Indeed it is in this realm that we enter into a philophical discussion or perhaps a theological one at that. It is not my purpose here to proceed with such a discussion, instead I simply want to make the point that the claim that the queston to when human life begins is clearly answered by science is a false one. Science will never answer this question, nor can it by the very limitations of scientific methodology!
Cesar, I respectfully and totally disagree. The terms “human” and “life” are scientifically defined. By your standard, it sounds like science could define nothing and everything would be a “philosophical or theological” question. That doesn’t make any sense.
When we get into the realm of “what is a person” and when does a human life deserve to be protected or begin to retain a “right to life”….these are philosophical and theological questions outside the realm of science. But whether or not something is “alive” is indeed (at least) a scientific distinction and so is the distinction of species (i.e. if it’s human or not). So I’m not sure what you’re basing your thoughts on.
Matt- Yes it is true that science must us a certain process of characterization and ordering to define the very subject matter it studies, eg biology defines life as the condition which distinguishes active organisms from inorganic matter and further having the characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes. Defining “human” is easy based on the organism cellular genetic makeup. Indeed the argument can be made that at the moment of conception (ie fertilization), the process is in place for the actualization of a human being (human embryogenesis). And in the process of embryonic development, there is a series of cell divisions and complex interactions that science again categories and nicely places into stages of the prenatal development. This is the role of science.
You are missing the more subtle issue here because your analysis of this topic is overly-simplistic… and likewise so are those of the experts and “drs” who propose defining life at conception “with a purpose”. Nowhere does science state that the value of a human being begins at conception, nor does science unequivocally answer the question of the beginnings in a human organism of the “self” (ie the cognitive and affective representation of one’s identity). Your argument or the drs argument that life begins at conception really proves nothing but a scientific classification (or definition if you will) to an reproductive phenomena.
Again I contest that the answers to the questions that science does not answer, eg value of human life, the “self”, or for those with a religious conviction you may even throw in “a soul”, are the domain of philosophical and theological analysis. Please do not confuse your public that the pure sciences can ever come to a universal conclusion to questions that are likely domed to a relativistic interpretation at best.
Cesar, I’m beginning to think you didn’t read the post? Or the last comment I wrote to you even? You are basically repeating back to me what I’ve already said.
Yes, “self”, personhood, ensoulment, “being” – however you would like to put it. These are not scientific questions. I’ve repeatedly said that. And I have never claimed otherwise.
And you just agreed with me that science says human life begins at fertilization.
I read it and am well aware of the point you are trying so hard to make. In fact you stated:
“If science had proven that human life actually began at implantation or at nine weeks or whenever, then that’s precisely when we (Catholics and any other reasonable belief system) would believe that human life began. Simple. And, logically, it would be from that moment when this human being should be treated with the rights and dignities that come with being a human being.”
This statement is eg of what my point is (that which I am unfortunately not making a conceiving argument)… “human being” is a vague term and the scientific definition of the term is simple a classification. However in your statement (which I quoted here) you impart a more profound meaning the term “human being” because you are associating other components of “being” (self) as you put it in your last reply. You are not imparting this component explicitly and perhaps not knowingly either, but I should point out to you that implicitly you are indeed putting a bigger meaning to the term “human being”. It is a common mistake or misunderstanding made by pro-life advocates and understandably so because its enticing to read and adopt a scientific explanation when it supports a point of interest.
However you are still not making the connection correctly, simply put you are comparing apples to oranges in your analysis of human being and human life as a SCIENTIFIC DEFINTION as having the components necessary to consider the moral and ethical treatment of that that entity. That is not a legit interpretation of the scientific data, sorry, science can explain much but not the philosophical; and for your information, even pure science has its set of paradox to what in fact it is defining at an “a priori” level (big arguments that rock the very foundations of what science can really know). But that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Cesar, The premise for the post is when does science say that “human life” begins. Science answers that question clearly. From the very beginning of your comments you have both denied this and accepted it. So pardon my confusion.
Yes, I did make one statement in the post that took it a step further saying that I believe that every human life should be treated as a human being. I believe this to be a logical position (not a scientific one) – if only because on a practical level there is no other point in time when we can definitively say that a particular human life is or is not a “being.” And we should certainly err on the side of “being.” And either way, whether you want to argue the personhood/being of a human life…it is still a human life. I’m not comparing apples to oranges. I don’t know what you’re talking about. I never once made a “scientific” connection or assertion between a “human life” and a “human being.”
It’s simplistic because it’s simple. You are the one purposely obfuscating it with an entirely different argument based on things I never said.
You say:
“Yes, I did make one statement in the post that took it a step further saying that I believe that every human life should be treated as a human being. I believe this to be a logical position (not a scientific one) – if only because on a practical level there is no other point in time when we can definitively say that a particular human life is or is not a “being.”"
That’s getting to the point, science cannot definitively say when “being” comes into existence; “human life” per se is not important or relevant to the discussion of constitutes a human or person and thus what can be assigned value of human life.
Yes a zygote for example is a human life by a pure scientific definition but more importantly that is not equivalent to say that this zygote is a human being in the sense of assigning human value to that life. It just does not make sense from a scientific perspective. You may make the argument using a religious proposition, but cannot ascribe any logical deduction to this conclusion. You stated that “I believe this to be a logical position (not a scientific one)…” you are correct there, you are entitled to believe what you want, but no science will substantiate this.
You also stated:
” Science has quite clearly and decidedly proven that human life begins at conception”
In fact, this is not a proof at all. Biology has simply identified and classified that at the fertilization the process for life (ie embryonic development of an organism) has begun. It is a very obvious classification to make based on the biological and cellular processes that take place during fertilization. But again I’m trying to make you understand that there is where the science stops! The science does not prove anything new about human beings or implications to the value of life. That’s what I mean about apples and oranges. There is no comparison or connection that should be made here between science and religion/philosophy, so please keep the two clearly separated (at least when you speak propose and proclaim that science has shed some light on this subject).
Statements like this:
“But despite our maturity, biological or otherwise, we are “whole” members of the human species – human beings. And with that comes an inherent dignity and right to life.”
Are huge leaps… of faith perhaps and have not real basis on science. “Inherent dignity”, “right of life” are all interesting concepts but ones that again are not appropriate to mix with the pure scientific facts of fertilization and embryonic development. The two subject areas do not mix!
Perhaps I’m still not making my point clear, I think it helps to remove yourself from you innate convictions. Sometimes when you want to really believe in something, that is a difficult endeavor.
Cesar,
I think you may be assuming that Matthew wants to understand your point. You do make excellent points, however.
Cesar – you keep agreeing with me and act like you are “getting to the point.” I never claimed science tells us when a human being has value or a right to life. I simply state that science demonstrates when a unique, individual, self-directed human life begins…at fertilization (conception).
You are speaking very unclearly. Science does not give one truth and philosophy another. It is all the same truth. Different approaches help us understand different aspects of the same truth.
A human life is present at conception. Therefore it has the value of a human life. That’s plain, simple logic. I am fully aware of the consequential discussion that follows regarding just what that “value” is. But that is not the point of this post really. Yes, what that value is is not entirely, if at all, a scientific question. I have not claimed it as such, nor have I tried to pretend so. The point here is to show that we know exactly when a human life begins. At conception. Many people don’t know that.
Once everyone is aware of this fact, then we can have the next discussion over what the value of that human life is. It’s a necessary and good discussion. But the scientific evidence of when human life begins is entirely relevant to that discussion. It informs it. It is not entirely separate. It all builds together to make the truth more clear for us.
There is the question of when human life begins. The answer is fertilization (conception) – science confirms this. With that knowledge we can then take what we believe are the inherent, natural human rights of every human, and now we can apply it to these small humans in the womb. It’s a very logical process. We can disagree on what those “human rights” are. You can even argue that some humans don’t have some of these human rights (if you believe some humans are of greater value than others – personally I don’t believe that). But the answer to whether a zygote/embryo/fetus is a human life has been answered.
I don’t know how to make my position any more clear for you.
Matthew,
Please stop fabricating. First of all, science doesn’t actually say anything.It’s not a human being. It doesn’t speak. Scientists say things. People who aren’t scientists use evidence from scientific findings to support opinions. People interpret science. You can’t logically say that “science” says something. (To try to personify or even deify science itself seems weak.)
Second, the majority of scientists say that life has one beginning – back at the point when life first appeared on earth. It’s gone on in a never-ending continuum since then. Sperm and eggs are alive before conception (unless they are dead of course).
Third, as always, when you present your opinions as if they are undebatable facts, you lose a tremendous amount of credibility. If you share an actual fact, only the most gullible will believe you since you are seem unwilling to identify your opinions for what they are. Presenting your opinions as fact seems desperate. It makes you an untrustworthy source.
Fourth, definitions don’t prove anything. They are a way to label reasoning. When you use a definition to replace reasoning itself and pretend that a definition represents incontrovertible fact, it seems like something is causing you to avoid engaging in reason. Why, Matthew? Why not use God’s gift of reason? You can do better.
Thanks for the encouragement.
I take it that means you are going to make an effort to move away from fabrication in order to pay attention to the world as God created it, not as Matthew imagined it?
If you think Matthew is wrong, prove it.
Can someone tell me why the so-called pro-lifers care so much about zygotes and so little about the high infant mortality rate in the US? Can someone tell me why so-called pro-lifers don’t seem to care that anti-choice laws don’t correlate with lower abortion rates but do correlate with higher maternal death rates? How is that thinking in any way pro-life?
Kimi – you obviously aren’t very familiar with very many “pro-lifers.” Even still, morality is not based solely on the ends (results).
Matthew,
I’m wondering what makes God’s awesome and beautiful real world scare you to the point of constant fabrication of an alternative reality. Your other world can never compete with God’s so why hide there?
Your “obvious” conclusion is wrong, which is not a surprise since you made no effort to research the facts. I know a lot of “pro-lifers” personally and I’ve reached out to many more over the internet. Why not ask me about the people I know? Seeking truth is so much more rewarding and righteous than making up your own false witness.
Matthew, I like to know more about how you define morality. If the consequences of actions aren’t first and foremost, how can the basis for any moral judgment actually lead to moral decisions?
Kimi, absolutely! It’s straight out of Catholicism 101…
Catechism of the Catholic Church (1755-1756):
“A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself.
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts – such as fornication – that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.
It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
Matthew, you’re getting circular again to the point of getting perfectly backwards.
Your quote boils down to: Don’t do evil so that good may result from it.
In direct contrast, the issue I discussed regarding “pro-lifers” was that they attempt to do good, but evil (increased death) results from the ill-advised legislation they promote.
Here’s a map:
My point = Don’t do A if it leads to B.
Your evidence = Don’t do B to try to get to A.
What was that?
What self-absorbed “pro-lifers” do is murderous: They cause an increase in deaths because they live out an unproven self-gratifying theory in willful ignorance of the evil, murderous consequences of their actions.
They also choose to remain uneducated about alternative approaches. Ego protection appears to reign above all else.
Oh Kimi – I addressed the exact question you asked: You said, “If the consequences of actions aren’t first and foremost, how can the basis for any moral judgment actually lead to moral decisions?”
You also said this:
“Can someone tell me why the so-called pro-lifers care so much about zygotes and so little about the high infant mortality rate in the US? Can someone tell me why so-called pro-lifers don’t seem to care that anti-choice laws don’t correlate with lower abortion rates but do correlate with higher maternal death rates? How is that thinking in any way pro-life?”
Your obvious implication here is that a person can not be pro-life if they support something which has consequences (infant mortality rate, lower abortion rates, maternal death rates) that are not also good.
And aside from your “facts” not being very true, the direct quote from the catechism I cited clearly explains why it is not Catholic at all to base our morality on these types of consequences when the actions/objects to attain them are themselves immoral. And it speaks directly against the idea that somebody can support abortion (or a choice for it) because some of the consequences may be positive. Which was your obvious implication.
You said you wanted to know more about how I “defined my morality”…so I told you. :-)
I’m sorry if you’re having trouble following.
Dr. George is considered America’s “most influential conservative Christian thinker.” so his annalogy doesn’t give credence to the evidence that an embyo is a human being
I’m fairly sure that’s a non sequitur. And also wrong.
Matthew,
Although you seem to frequently misconstrue comments you read here, I’m guessing that reading comprehension is not the core issue.
More likely, you are someone with high ideals who cares and wants to do right — someone who delves deeply into ideas. You want to be accurate and objective. But sometimes in delving deeply, we forget to observe emotions and in doing so, we can lose crucial data. It becomes hard to see how emotions shift our thinking if we are not objectively paying attention to them.
If you truly want to be right, you have to be willing to be objective in looking at your opinions and your reactions to people around you. Stepping back may be hard, but is ignoring all approaches other than your own really the best way to reduce abortion rates? Who does it help when you cling to ideas that don’t work in the real world the way you’d hope they would? It doesn’t help the human beings who wind up dead while you ignore reality.
Are you aware that abortion rates are higher in red states and in areas that preach so-called “family values.” That approach doesn’t work because the preachiness breaks down family relationships rather than builds them.
Are you aware of any of the educational approaches that do work to reduce abortion rates? I recall that in the past you seemed to make an assumption that alternatives to preventing abortion are only about birth control and that’s it. That made me sad because it meant that you didn’t care enough about this issue to be informed.
Learn, Matthew. It’s not okay to bury mistakes with denial. Be willing to learn and make each day better. If God did not mean for us to develop and learn, then we would be born fully competent. We aren’t. We’re made to learn.
Please do the right thing. Slow down. Observe. Pay attention to the truth that God’s world puts in front of you. Learn to build more effective approaches. There is so much you can do to help build solutions if you are just willing to look at the options.
May God bless you, Matthew.
I’ll use simpler language:
“Pro-lifers” support legislation that actually increases the total number of deaths. That is not pro-life.
If you believe you advocate life, but instead cause an increase in total number of abortions and other deaths, you are not pro-life.
If you have to pretend that you are saving lives, when the evidence says you are doing the opposite, that is not a pro-life attitude.
If your hope that you are right is more important than the actual outcomes of your actions, you are not pro-life.
If you ignore proven life-affirming ways to reduce the number of abortions. That is not pro-life.
If you are given opportunities to learn about approaches that reduce abortions and save the lives of infants and mothers — and you are not eager to at least explore that, you are not pro-life.
If telling other people what to do causes more abortions and you continue to do it anyway because you want to feel good about your preaching regardless of its murderous results, you are not pro-life.
You see Matthew, “pro-life” means in favor of life, supportive of life. People who cause an increase in deaths, people who are not even slightly interested in learning ways to simultaneously reduce abortions, maternal death, and infant mortality can not, in any interpretation of the English language, be pro-life.
There’s no trade off in reducing those big three causes of preventable death, Matthew. Basic educational strategies reduce infant mortality, maternal death, and abortion rates all at the same time. I’m not talking about birth control either. I know that’s off the table for you.
May God rain love and life upon you.
Kimi – this is getting silly. Thank you for the sermon and the dogmatic, infallible proclamation of what Kimi thinks it means to be pro-life. Thanks for the advice…I beg you to take some of your own advice as well. For the record, I disagree with most all of the assumptions you make, but this is not the place to discuss them.
Your conclusions as to the cause of various statistics (such as “That approach doesn’t work because the preachiness breaks down family relationships rather than builds them”) are not based in fact at all – and it’s irrelevant to the question/topic at hand anyway. I’m well aware of the statistics. But when did I say that birth control was the only way to prevent abortion? This is where it gets impossible to take you seriously, Kimi. Seriously? It’s like you just said you had breakfast with the statue of liberty this morning…I just don’t know how to respond. Your accusations are outlandish, fictional and that’s an unfortunate pattern of yours on this blog. It feels like you are more interested in taking every opportune tangent to personally attack some fictional character you’ve created in your head as me rather than wanting to be a part of an honest discussion. And then in a most impressive display of irony you preach about how I’m too preachy, use fiction to complain that I live in a fictional world, closed-mindedly accuse me of being closed-minded, use unsupported personal opinion to criticize my use of facts, and then insist you are Catholic while denying Catholic teaching. Your comments are also getting way off the topic of this post.
Let’s just agree to disagree if that works for you.
SHEESH! Enough already!
Kimi and Matthew, you both are talking past each other in ways that appear sometimes willful, sometimes ignorant. You have each said what you believe to be true regarding abortion and being pro-life. Neither of you is getting through to the other. It seems more and more to be about nothing more than winning an argument rather than having a discussion and trying to come either to a subset of the discussion on which you can agree or coming to a fuller understanding of the other’s beliefs and positions and holding firm in your own positions while coming to a certain enhanced respect for those with whom you continue to disagree.
Kimi, it’s not your blog. You had your say. Back off.
Matthew, it might be time to close comments on this post or to delete future responses to this post by Kimi rather than continuing this embarrassing tit-for-tat.
And, of course, it is your blog, Matthew. Feel free to delete this comment too. Just know that, as a visitor, I’m finding this particular exchange increasingly embarrassing.
Okay, Matthew. I’m discussing abortion with a couple of other Catholics. We’re all finding it very hard to accept the Church’s teaching that abortion is not justified even when it is the only way to save the Mother.
What I’m talking about is a scenario when both the Mother AND baby would certainly die anyway, but the Mother could be saved if the baby was aborted.
The situations DO occur. I’ll give you a written example from a friend I’ll call Sally:
“I am one of those who would NOT be here had the pregnancy I was carrying not been terminated. My blood loss was so severe because I had tried to keep the pregnancy going past 5 months which at the time was not viable. I have been told by more than one Priest that I did nothing wrong – neither the fetus or I would have lived. There are some on here who will say that the Priests were wrong – and honestly, I’m going with what my Priest told me. I really wish that child was here, living right now, but it just was not to be and my death would not have made any difference regarding that life.
I have no doubt I will hear that “maybe if you waited, God would have performed a miracle” or “the church says terminating a pregnancy for any reason is wrong – you should have just allowed God to take you both…” or some comment that is similar. My husband is glad I’m here as is my Priest and my family. I have been asked “how are you going to tell your other children how you killed their brother or sister?” – I will tell them exactly what happened when they are of a proper age. I want them to know that they have a little brother (actually more than one) up in Heaven who they can ask to pray for them. And the question I put down I have been asked – I did not “kill” the fetus -the doctor saved my life. And honestly, if in the same situation, I would expect my doctor and my husband to make the same decision. I am Catholic but I have yet to have a Priest tell me to my face that if a woman is in a similar situation to mine or is pregnant and neither she nor the fetus have a possibility of living if the pregnancy is continued that she is supposed to let herself be killed along with the fetus. And I will not feel guilty. I am sad I could not carry that fetus longer, but my family is glad that I’m still here. I’m glad the technology is here that allows a woman to live (in a similar situation) and I really do hope that doctors will find a way to save both mother and fetus/child when similar situations occur.”
…and there is of course also the recent case of Sister McBride.
I know the Church’s infallible teaching is that abortion is completely forbidden in ALL circumstances, including the extremely difficult one I have described, but the question is, how does this make sense?
You are an excellent apologist and I am interested to hear your thoughts on this very thorny issue, Matthew.
God bless.
I am not Matthew. I think I can give a good answer to your question, although you have not provided enough information.
I am not judging “Sally.” I am very sorry for her loss. My mother lost my youngest brother many years ago (he was stillborn — if there had been ultrasound in 1951, the problem that killed him would have been detected early, he probably would have been delivered by c-section, and he would have lived). She grieved over that loss for nearly 60 years.
I am not assuming or saying that medically this was simple — I am not a doctor, and even if I were, you have not related enough facts to make it possible to answer your question.
The question you have not answered is, why was Sally bleeding so badly? The way you’ve set this up makes it seem that you hope to create an emotional state in the reader that will make it appear that “there was absolutely no choice but to have an abortion.” Doctors have said many times, under oath in testimony and in medical literature, that this is very rarely or never the case.
The natural law and the law of the Church require that the doctor do everything possible to save both mother and child. The principle of double effect probably applies in the case you relate, depending on what was actually going on with Sally. So, for example, if a woman who is pregnant is shot in the abdomen, the doctor will have to try to save both mother and child, and if in the process, the child dies, no grave moral violation has taken place (as long as the doctor did not perform an abortion). Saving mom might, for example, require the doctor to remove her uterus in order to stop the bleeding. The doctor foresees the death of the child, but neither the doctor nor the mother intend that the child die. The doctor does nothing to directly take the child’s life. In fact there are cases in which women who were in their 24th or 25th week of pregnancy were shot in the abdomen, and the doctor was able to save the mother’s life AND the baby’s life, even though the procedure involved removing the uterus; we have come a long way with what is possible and almost routine in medicine, to the point that these results would have been called “miraculous” twenty years ago. The same principle applies in the case of an ectopic pregnancy — the baby is implanted in the wrong place, outside the womb. The surgical process that is required to save mom will result in the death of the child, but the process is not an abortion, and it is not intended to cause the death of the child (who in this case will almost certainly be too young to survive, even with the best that any doctor could do). The main requirement is that the doctor may not do anything that is directly intended to cause the death of the baby. The direct taking of innocent life is always and under all circumstances forbidden.
You can read about the principle of double effect on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect
There is another Web site with medical examples, one involving a pregnant woman with a cancerous womb: http://www.trosch.org/phi/dbl-efft.htm
And that is how “this makes sense.” I hope this helps you understand. I hope that you will not pass this along to Sally — there is no point in increasing the pain and grief she already feels. If she is Catholic, I am sure she has already received absolution in confession, and in any case, God’s mercy and justice will prevail. My answer, as I said, is for you, and for anyone else who reads this.
Oh, about Sister McBride — we don’t have any facts whatsoever about the condition of the mother for whom she approved an abortion. Because of HIPPA, we will never have those facts, so bringing up Sister McBride is simply throwing in the proverbial red herring in this discussion. However, the Church law is firm, and allows no exceptions. What Sister did in approving the abortion was wrong. Period. My own suspicion about the case is covered by what I said above: Doctors have said many times, under oath in testimony and in medical literature, that it is very rarely or never the case that an abortion is required in order to save the life of the mother.
St. Gianna Beretta Mola, pray for all mothers, especially those faced with these difficulties and tragedies.
Good issues, but then, here’s the situation: “Sally’s” situation, I learned later, was one where, in other situations, it would be possible to not abort the baby and still save the Mother (c-section). But the Doctors’ messed up, and by this time in Sally’s pregnancy, it was too late t give a c-section and save Sally for whatever reason (as Sally told it to us), and an abortion was necessary.
Doctors will always mess up. Must we let Sally die here?
Readers who get this far down the comments might find this interesting:
http://stlouisreview.com/article/2010-07-06/cross-good-catholics
This is an article by the Archbishop of St. Louis, Robert Carlson, titled “Good Catholics cannot be pro-choice; The Fifth Commandment demands respect for life as God’s most precious gift” — he pretty much tells it like it is. If you disagree, please write the Archbishop, not me.
My friend, something is not right about that story. It is never too late to do a c-section, for one thing. There are some other problems with it, too. The condition you described sounds like placenta previa, for which abortion is not the appropriate procedure in any case, and it would be totally useless for stopping the bleeding.
It’s pointless to go on with this discussion. There’s too much in what you relate that makes no sense.
Left this out of my previous reply:
Either you misunderstood what Sally told you, or Sally misunderstood what the doctor said. There is no way to answer the (now hypothetical, since we aren’t dealing with facts) question “must we let Sally die?” The answer to the (perhaps unasked) question, “Is abortion still wrong and a grave sin?” is still “Yes” — and it always will be.
True.
Mr Warner, thank you so much for your beautiful, peaceful and enlightening arguments. You are always spot-on, in my opinion. You have a real gift from God; you are a real gift from God.
Good post, good read.
I like the idea of a scientific approach built on core definitions. It seems very logical, like the way you might prove that 1+0=1. You can argue all day about the philosophical ramifications of that statement to no avail, what the meaning of 1 or 0 is, et cetera, or you can take the easy route and prove it mathematically using basic axioms that are universally accepted, or defined.
I have to admit that after reading a good portion of the comments it was difficult not to post replies to some of the people. It’s difficult when someone completely ignores the point of another’s comments (i.e. a scientific approach to defining the beginning of a human life) and make only slightly-related, argument-inducing comments of their own. It’s even more difficult when you disagree with them! :-)
That being said, your post only adds another layer of cement to my already firm view that life begins at conception. I wish all could share this view, which, based on my nearly 5 years of university study in mathematics and computer science, feels like a logically sound argument. However, I think people hear what they want to hear and ignore the rest.
Thank you,
Jordan
Very good and well written, but be aware: the scientific argument isn’t enough.(It’s not enough to know “what is” in order to get to what “ought to be”).
We kill all sorts of unquestionably human beings everyday (executions, war, etc.) so the argument about “personhood” what it means and what rights and dignity attaches to it is still essential. Which is one of the reasons I became a Catholic: what the church has to say about the dignity of human personhood is wise and important.
Matt, Thank you for writing this. I enjoyed reading it & will share it. I get so passionate about the issue of abortion & sometimes cannot clearly state my beliefs without sounding life a blinded by my Catholic faith nut case. I now have something to turn to.
There are so many things that are protected but not yet “alive” & when I ask why a sea turtle egg or bald eagle egg are protected when a human embryo are not I am told because we are not “endangered”. I say if we keep abortion legal one day we humans may too become “endangered.” Watch the movie Children of Men. I don’t think people stop having babies in the movie because of abortion (I could be wrong), but I fear this will be our future if we don’t end the senseless murder of our most forgotten humans, the unborn.
Again, thank you for writing this great article.
I’m a Democrat and an atheist.
And I hate abortion and think it’s absurd to believe that human life begins at any other time than when sperm meets egg.
I know I am totally late in the game here, but I was troubled by the argument about the boy of five being taken off life support by his mother and why is that acceptable but not aborting a life form that is completely dependent on a mother for it’s ability to live.
First off I don’t support taking people off life support, feeding tubes, or what have you anyway, but beyond that, if you are really fairly comparing the two scenarios, the mother of the five year old would more likely be told you can take your son off life support, but he has a 80-90% chance of living a full happy healthy life if you wait 9 months. Now I think, and I may be wrong, but you would probably be very hard pessed to find any mother in their right mind who would take that child off life support, and if they did I am sure there would be a whole lot of outrage at that decision. Just my very late two cents worth.
I often struggle with this issue myself. I know that an embryo is technically a full human, and has the genetic material of a complete human being. It makes me uncomfortable with abortion. What I struggle with is this: what about the mother? We are so concerned about the rights of this human being, but it doesn’t seem that we are at all concerned with the rights of the mother. How do we rectify that? I think we should add that to our consideration to complete the whole picture, because without this issue being discussed we are only talking about half of the problem and won’t solve anything.
So far, I have been leaning towards the conclusion that a human embryo should not be given rights until it is viable outside of the mother (though I am by no means completely sure in this). Before then, it essentially acts as a parasite, living off of the mother and completely depending on her body and energy. If it isn’t implanted into the uterine lining, it will flush out and cease existing. Could we really say that is the death of a human being? It is estimated that about half of all pregnancies (both discovered and undiscovered) end with either being flushed out of the uterus before implantation or in spontaneous miscarriage by no fault of anyone, many times without the mother even knowing it was inside of her. So you could say that implantation is the point of human-beingness, but then again, it cannot possibly survive outside of the mother (even with medical assistance) until later on in the pregnancy. It is so much more complicated than simply saying “it is a human at conception and therefore deserves full rights.” :(
And please correct me if I got any of my facts wrong! I don’t want to be spouting out falsities, that would be very embarrassing.
Bull… Life begins after 3rd week of fetus development… Otherwise everything that contains DNA is a human starting with sperm (forget about hout showers), nails and skin. What I’m trying to say You should bury your nails every time you clip them cuz your nails are human cells… same as blastula or whatever…
I wanted to thank all who logically, non aggressively and respectively shared their views in this post. It is so refreshing to respect each other even if we agree to disagree. I believe 100% that a human being is created and exist completely human from the moment of conception. again, my thanks
The comment hasn’t showed up yet, but I received a notification for it so I’ll respond. It was this:
“And better education and resources for pregnant mothers would be great. I’m with you there. I’m not with you on more contraception (as that is one of the contributing factors to the lifestyle that has led to more abortions and to treating abortion as a kind of “birth control” in the first place).”
Actually, more contraception is not the contributing factor to why more abortions are taking place. Contraception prevents pregnancy if used properly (especially if two or more methods are used at once, which is recommended). Dangerous pregnancies are unrelated to contraception usage. And many women who get abortions are young teenagers who don’t use contraception (or don’t use it properly) because they are only taught abstinence. It has been proven that areas in the US that teach abstinence only or have inadequate sex education courses have higher rates of teen pregnancy. If contraception was more available and used correctly, the market for abortions would decrease dramatically. The only way that could happen without contraception knowledge and usage is if people didn’t have sex at all. To say that more contraception is not the answer, and then say that abortions should be illegal, is putting women in a very bad place indeed.
It’s also a little offensive to say that people today think of abortion as a form of birth control (I’m assuming you mean women, since they’re the ones getting the procedure). You are not a woman; I am. I do not know any woman (or person), for or against abortion, who thinks of it as a form of birth control. And if someone does, it is not the availability of actual contraception that causes this view. Abortion is a serious and horrible procedure that is not to be taken lightly. How could anyone view ending a pregnancy as no big deal? Many women agonize over it. And that is why it is so important to make real birth control more available.
Tessa – the reply was up higher in the thread as it was a reply to somebody else’s comment. That’s why you dont’ see it at the bottom here.
Thanks for your thoughts. And actually, it’s yes, a contraceptive culture has most certainly contributed to more abortions. The correlation is astounding. The more and more common the use of contraceptives has become, the more and more abortions that have occurred.
I never said contraception didn’t help prevent pregnancy if used properly. And I never said or implied that dangerous pregnancies had anything to do with contraception use. Not sure why you mentioned those.
Putting women in a bad place? That is ridiculous and COMPLETELY insulting to women. Women are completely capable of controlling themselves if they are taught to and, if they do make a mistake, giving birth to the innocent baby inside of them…their own child.
The problem with POVs like yours is that you start with a (false) given that…women are going to have sex. As if they have no control over what they do. It’s not just the abstinence education that failed some people, it’s the entire education system and most of all their families and the culture in general that implies the same (false) given that you are – that they are just going to have sex, “everyone is gonna do it.” So, of course, they do. Duh.
And of COURSE people use abortion as birth control. Anytime you have sex, even if you use multiple forms of birth control, there is a chance at pregnancy. Period. So if you’re going to have “responsible” sex, then you had better be ready to accept a child. Otherwise, you have no place at all rolling the dice with pregnancy, conceiving a child and then killing them because you decided it was okay to roll the dice on getting pregnant because you used contraception and, whoops, it failed. That’s completely irresponsible. And anyone who gets an abortion because their “birth control failed” is most certainly using abortion as a form of birth control. Their “conception control” failed (contraception) so they “control” the birth another way (by killing the baby). A huge portion of abortions occur because “my birth control failed.” That is abortion as birth control, plain and simple.
You are missing the point of how contraception contributes to abortions. It’s a matter of the cultural value of sex and its consequences. Contraception and its widespread use has enabled (and encouraged) this idea that there is such a thing as “responsible” or “safe” sex that doesn’t involve the potential consequences of a new human life being created. That’s a lie. The ONLY place that safe and responsible sex can occur is within a life-long marriage which is open to the children that may result from their sexual activity. The child deserves that and needs that.
Additionally, a contraceptive culture and a false sense that there is such a thing as “safe” sex has had a risk compensation effect. That is, because people perceive sex as completely safe and that there are no real consequences to it, they engage in more and riskier sex than they would have otherwise. That’s what scientific research found with the “condom” distribution approach to stopping AIDS in Africa (more on that here).
Hello Matthew,
I do see your point on the contraceptive issues, and why it might be seen as birth control by some. I just wanted to point out that not all see it as that. I certainly do not. For example, if I had sex and were to get pregnant, I would have the child and give it up for adoption. I just don’t see abortion as an option for myself. But I am so thankful that I have contraceptives that I can use that significantly reduce my odds of getting pregnant to almost zero. And I never said that sex wasn’t risky. That is my point: the problem is that people aren’t adequately taught about sex. We should not teach people that sex is completely safe, but how to have sex responsibly and know what the very real risks are. It is silly to assume that anything you do doesn’t have risks. Taking medication has risks. Skydiving has risks. Eating new foods has risks. But it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do those things; enjoy them, as long as you are prepared for it and do it responsibly. Perhaps if people were actually taught how to use contraceptives properly, and they were informed of the success rates and told to use more than one method at a time, then the abortion rate would in fact decrease rather than increase. Just giving people contraceptives and telling them to go for it is never the answer.
I completely respect that you feel sex should only be within marriage for those who want children, but I do not agree that your ideal should be imposed on everyone in America. That is extremely unfair. Not everyone shares your personal and/or religious beliefs, and it is perfectly ok for them to not agree with you and act how they see fit. I, for example, do not see sex the same way that you see sex. I would ask that you respect my freedom to have sex and use contraceptives, though you may not agree with how I live my life. Again, I respect that you want to live your life that way, but you can’t force others to do the same. I understand wanting abortion to be illegal on the grounds of unjustly ending a life, but people should both be educated about contraceptives/sex and have access to contraceptives, because not everyone believes the way you do.
Tessa, I never suggested that my ideals about marriage or contraceptive use should be “imposed.” What I AM suggesting is that one woman’s “choice” to kill their baby should not be “imposed” on anyone else – most especially her baby.
And while giving your unwanted baby up for adoption is certainly VASTLY more “responsible” than aborting (killing) him/her. It still is not very responsible. Which is my point.
Sex being only appropriate within a life-long marriage is not only a “religious belief.” It’s a matter of justice for the baby involved. It’s based upon natural law – no need for religious beliefs to come into play at all. Your unwanted baby is owed his/her biological mother and father. And not separately, but within a secure and safe relationship that is exclusive and life-long (this is the definition of a marriage). That is what is best for the child. That is what they are owed by you, her mother. For you to engage in sex knowing that you risk getting pregnant while not intending to take responsibility for your own child, the human being you brought into the world, is not responsible at all. Sorry.
Adoption is a beautiful choice for people who are victims of irresponsible behavior (their own or others) and who could not otherwise provide for their child. It is not a “responsible” option for people who want to have sex without consequences and then to shirk their duty to the baby they bring into the world as a result of it. Giving up all responsibility for their own son or daughter who, by no fault of their own, was brought into the world by their mother’s desire for sex – but not for them.
It has absolutely nothing to do with what I believe. It has to do with what is just and right for each and every human life that comes into being.
Hello Matthew,
I’m sorry, but I get the feeling that you’re not a huge fan of women liking sex. You seem to think that it is all the woman’s fault if a baby is born. I’m not sure if that is actually what you believe, but that is how you’re presenting yourself. It takes two to get pregnant, and men tend to get the better end of the deal since they don’t actually birth the child. And actually, it would be a responsible choice for me to give up any hypothetical child I birthed because I do not think I would be a fit mother for a child. Just because I am a woman does not automatically make me a good mother; I have my strengths, and nurturing children is definitely not one of them. Any child of mine would be much better off with parents who use their resources to adopt a child than it would be with me. And just because I do not want children does not mean that I should not have sex. Sex is a wonderful, pleasureable thing that brings couples together, and there are many ways to have sex that won’t result in pregnancy (meaning no penetration is involved, and as a bit of TMI, that constitutes most of the sex that I have). And even if penetration is involved, modern contraceptives (when used correctly and in conjunction with one another) make that chance nearly zero.
And I actually plan on getting sterilized as soon as I can so that I can fully enjoy sex in all forms, which is a whole other issue, since apparently as a woman most American doctors won’t sterilize me unless I have one or two children already and/or are thirty years of age. You tell me whether it’s fair or not if I happen to (on the 99.9% off chance) get pregnant because a doctor wouldn’t sterilize me for these reasons when I wanted to be sterilized. Why do so many people care only about the child living, and living with the biological mother, when they never consider the mother herself or how the child will be taken care of with the mother? It rather thoughtless, and it feels like it’s all about control. I am trying to understand other people’s views, am willing to reconsider my own, and want to find a solution that benefits everyone involved, but I can’t find others who are willing to look at all of the factors with me. There is more than just one factor involved, and it feels like most sides in these sort of debate choose to only focus on one factor. Things aren’t black and white, no matter how hard one may try to make them so.
Whether or not you feel my choice to give a hypothetical child up for adoption is responsible or not, that is for me the most responsible choice I could make, and you have no right to judge my choice as responsible or irresponsible without knowing my situation. I’m not perfect; I’m sure you’re not either. Maybe you don’t agree that I should be having (responsible, protected) sex if I don’t want children, or that I should give up any hypothetical child I would have at this time for adoption; to that I say that my situation is an extremely complicated one that I would not be able to share here, and we will have to agree to disagree. And I have a feeling you won’t agree with anything that that think or choose to do, so I am not going to argue further.
Tessa – it really gets back to something more fundamental. We have to consider what we were made for. Our bodies were clearly made with a purpose. Our creator made humans with certain capabilities – i.e. being able to create new human life. The process by which that happens is coital sex (since we’re getting all technical now). The fact that sex also happens to be pleasurable doesn’t mean it no longer also has the function of procreation. Anyone who engages in sex where there is the possibility of a new human life being created (and yes, that involves contracepted sex) has the responsibility to care for that child if they are created. This is a natural, moral law. Not my opinion or some religious dogma. It applies to both men and women (not sure where you are getting that I’m somehow treating one sex differently than the other or letting men off the hook).
Your child deserves to have YOU as their mother and to be raise and cared for and loved by YOU (and the father of course). In situations where that is not possible, obviously, adoption (and other options) is a wonderful and beautiful secondary alternative. But that doesn’t negate the obligation in the first place of the biological mother. And in the case of adoption what it most often means (with few exceptions) is that the man and woman putting the child up for adoption probably should not have been engaging in sex in the first place. Our actions obligate us to certain moral responsibilities. If we aren’t ready to accept those then we aren’t ready to have sex.
Sterilizing yourself intentionally is not a good alternative either, as it is an abuse of your body. You are destroying a perfectly healthy and good function of how your body was designed to work. And all so that you can enjoy some pleasure it was designed for without the natural and good consequences of the act.
Tessa – life is about much more than maximizing our pleasure. That is a road that ends in despair. The pursuit of such pleasure while disregarding what we were made to be will not lead to the peace and joy you are searching for. That peace is only found in recognizing who you are and what you were made to be and then living in accordance with it.
I wish you the best! God bless you.
Tessa,
It seems to me that you came to this particular discussion on this particular blog for a reason. Maybe, in your heart of hearts, you are looking for truth.
Someone who believes that everything isn’t black and white, that is, one who believes that there is no truth, or that truth is relative, has a problem — or so it seems to me. To believe that there is no absolute right and wrong means that the person has to accept that nothing he or she says is reliable, that in fact everything he or she says or believes is meaningless.
Apparently, from what you have said in this thread, you believe that you have the absolute right to do whatever you want, whenever you want, with whomever you want, as often as you want, however you want. Do you not see the contradiction?
The only way to make sense of the world and of life is to understand that there is right and wrong. Right is not always pleasant or convenient, and wrong never comes without consequences. Matt’s take on things is right. You may find that unpleasant or inconvenient, but that doesn’t make you right.
I hope you will consider that as you look for truth. I pray that you don’t stop looking for truth until you find it, and that you find the fulness of truth and have the courage to accept it.
Peace and all good to you.
This is to the moderators – just delete my comment from March 12, 2012 at 1:46 AM. I’ve grown tired of the debate. Additionally, I’ve developed a surprising admiration for the the teachings of the Catholic Church. I was simply bored and saw in Matt a possibly interesting sparing partner. I’m being capricious, but I simply do not want to engage in the debate any longer. I’ve no real opinion on the matter and have developed a genuine respect for Matt and the other contributors.
Thanks, Will
{ 18 trackbacks }